Freedom vs. Discipline

[Sunstone]

For the sake of discussion, let's begin by assuming that social and political freedom and social and political discipline are mutually exclusive. That is, the freer a society is, the less disciplined it is. And the more disciplined a society is, the less free it is.

If we first make that assumption, can we reasonably argue that freer societies are in general better at promoting the well-being and human potential of their members than more disciplined societies?

Please note we are only talking about freedom and discipline in relative terms here. In absolute terms, a perfectly free society would be an anarchy and no such society actually exists. Also in absolute terms a perfectly disciplined society would be something akin to a beehive and no such society actually exists. However, some societies are relatively freer than other societies. For instance: The America of the 1970s was arguably freer than the Soviet Union of the 1970s. Again, the ancient Athenians were arguably freer than the ancient Spartans. The Japan of today is arguably freer than the Japan of the 1930s. And the India of today is arguably freer (at least economically) than the India of the 1980s.

 

[Sunstone]

Does anyone want to try this one on for size?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Seems to me that when people experience themselves to be free they are generally content & healthy and would always choose to be so. Discipline itself is a means to that end. Its a response to a stress that restricts freedom and that stress comes in the form of a potential threat or an unfulfilled desire. One becomes disciplined to remove the obstacle to a freer existence.

Freer societies are always by their nature generally more content & healthy societies. More disciplined societies are always responding to threat or desire, even if the threat or desire is illusory (as it so often is).

As for human potential I'm not sure what that means. We're potentially a lot of things, perhaps any-thing. Sunstone, when you say human potential is there something in particular implied by it?

 

[Engyo]

I don't personally find freedom and discipline to be mutually exclusive (or relatively exclusive, as in more of one = less of the other). I think it is entirely possible to be free and disciplined, and also possible to be not free and undisciplined. Defining both of those terms strictly, for the purposes of the discussion, will be key.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I don't personally find freedom and discipline to be mutually exclusive (or relatively exclusive, as in more of one = less of the other). I think it is entirely possible to be free and disciplined, and also possible to be not free and undisciplined. Defining both of those terms strictly, for the purposes of the discussion, will be key.

How would you define them in your case Engyo?

 

[Engyo]

Not sure I could - I would probably have framed what I m guessing Sunstone is trying to get to in a different way. Of course, I may not be anywhere near understandign what he was trying to get to, so who knows?

 

[Dreamwolf]

If we first make that assumption, can we reasonably argue that freer societies are in general better at promoting the well-being and human potential of their members than more disciplined societies?

Please note we are only talking about freedom and discipline in relative terms here. In absolute terms, a perfectly free society would be an anarchy and no such society actually exists. Also in absolute terms a perfectly disciplined society would be something akin to a beehive and no such society actually exists.

I believe it could be argued that freer societies offer more opportunities for people to realize their potential. The freer society would also be less organized though, and that in itself would waste the talents of some people, because you have those people that could achieve anything but need the structure.
A more disciplined society though would provide more structure and routine so that people could focus more, work harder and possibly achieve more than they otherwise could. They would also be more likely to keep people in their respective niche and be less likely to allow for improvement.

 

[Mister Emu]

I think he is talking about more libertarian vs more authoritarian forms of government...

 

[Dreamwolf]

I think he is talking about more libertarian vs more authoritarian forms of government...

Most likely. I have a habit of not being able to read people's minds to know exactly what they are talking about, and responding with my thoughts anyway. :foot: It's part of my charm, you will learn to love me for it. :yes: And if you don't, oh well.

 

[Sunstone]

In another thread, someone asserted that freedom and discipline were mutually exclusive, and that discipline was more important than freedom. I'm asking that you make that same assumption and then discuss which -- freedom or discipline -- would be more likely to promote human potential.

 

[†Lilithâ€]

I would vote for discipline/structure, myself.
My view of it is that in a freer society, people would certainly gravitate toward more artistic ideals, but in this age, there could be the danger that the people would turn completely narcissistic. For instance, more time might be spent attempting to climb the ladder of social hierarchy instead of working to attain their collective potential.

Referencing Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (text courtesy of Wikipedia):

In the world of Atlas Shrugged, society stagnates when independent productive achievers began to be socially demonized and even punished for their accomplishments, even though society had been far more healthy and prosperous by allowing, encouraging and rewarding self-reliance and individual achievement.

I worry that a freer, relatively unstructured society would base things like, say, business promotions, on the person's aesthetic appeal, age, or social status rather than their competence.
For instance--and I'm going by personal experience here--the "stupid girl" phenomenon; in this era, where women have more opportunities than ever, I grew up with many girls who deliberately did poorly in school because they were waiting to get married and be "taken care of" by their husbands. There's quite a few celebrities (I won't name names here) that, through their conduct, appear to promote this ideal--appearance over talent, social status over creativity, etc.
In a more structured society--a well-structured society, certainly not a dictatorship--I feel that people, such as artists or inventors, would be rewarded for their time, their effort, and their creativity.
Dreamwolf (surname The Brilliant) linked me to this thread and after a while of discussing it, she encouraged me to post. Since I don't have much experience with political debates, I decided to stick to my new RF forum posting rule: if I don't have enough experience with the topic, I will state my opinion and then move on.

Anyway, it's just my two cents. I really enjoyed reading the other posts, it's all very thought-provoking.

 

[Dreamwolf]

I would vote for discipline/structure, myself.
My view of it is that in a freer society, people would certainly gravitate toward more artistic ideals, but in this age, there could be the danger that the people would turn completely narcissistic. For instance, more time might be spent attempting to climb the ladder of social hierarchy instead of working to attain their collective potential.

I completely agree with this. The stability of the given society would weaken with every person that chose to focus on the social world. If an entire society was not concerned at all with discipline it would leave itself vulnerable and weak.

I worry that a freer, relatively unstructured society would base things like, say, business promotions, on the person's aesthetic appeal, age, or social status rather than their competence.

This would lead to a society where money does not equal power, but instead beauty equals power. Which would mean that the society as a whole does not function at its highest potential, but instead, at a point where knowledge isn't important, progress is slow, and the economy is inferior.

In a more structured society--a well-structured society, certainly not a dictatorship--I feel that people, such as artists or inventors, would be rewarded for their time, their effort, and their creativity.

I agree with this also chaotic, in most cases, is not a good thing.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Well I find this hard. I believe that without a certain degree of discipline freedom cannot be maintained but without freedom discipline is pointless. They aren't mutually exclusive, they are like yin & yang. They support each other, give meaning to each other and are nested within each other. However, sticking to the scenario set up by Sunstone, i.e. imagining that they were mutually exclusive, I'd conclude that freer societies are more likely to fulfil human potential.

The freedom to be creative & satiate curiosity is vital. Without that there is no more potential to become anything other than that which already is. Decadence might threaten the fulfilment of potential but at least it was there in the first place.

Actually I can't do this. My mind isn't suited to dealing with absolute opposites and I don't believe there are any. Nor do I like the association of potential with progress. Progress towards what? Potential for what? The Tao is basically utterly open.