"The Funnel"

Originally posted by sonhouse
The person who disciplines him or herself and starts at the narrow end of the funnel will still be at the narrow end of the funnel 40 years later, no different than when they started out. It's all voluntary restrictions of your lifestyle and you will not be more free later on, just as restricted as you started out. You had the freedom to do all the nasty th ...[text shortened]... e 40 years later and don't. Seems like they are still in the narrow section of the cone to me.

As I said before, the idea is that after you discipline yourself you will not desire to do drugs or have illicit sex. Your desire will be to do all the things that make your life better. I think that includes many things you are free to do once you know how to make the right decisions. Otherwise, you may never see the day to have the opportunity to make those decisions.

Originally posted by whodey
I heard a pastor make an interesting comparison between freedom and a funnel. Basically, the small end of the funnel symbolized a lack of personal freedom and the wide top of the funnel symbolized enhanced personal freedom.

So if you begin your journey doing as you please like having sex with whoever you desire, doing drugs because it feels good, dropping lease and pleasure yourself, your personal freedom expands as the funnel is turned on its head.

Sorry, but I make no sense out of any of that on first reading.

Could you explain again how in making imprudent choices one is exhibiting "enhanced personal freedom"; and in making disciplined choices that reflect what one knows is the right thing one is exhibiting "lack of personal freedom"?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sorry, but I make no sense out of any of that on first reading.

Could you explain again how in making imprudent choices one is exhibiting "enhanced personal freedom"; and in making disciplined choices that reflect what one knows is the right thing one is exhibiting "lack of personal freedom"?

Well one that does not apply themselves to better themselves will have less
than one who does which is really only true on a level playing field. The one
who has more due to time and effort will have greater and more worth while
choices than the one who only lived for the moment, again only on a level
playing field.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well one that does not apply themselves to better themselves will have less
than one who does which is really only true on a level playing field. The one
who has more due to time and effort will have greater and more worth while
choices than the one who only lived for the moment, again only on a level
playing field.
Kelly

I do not see how this addresses my question.

The idea that one who enacts a disciplined regimen of doing what he knows to be the right thing to do is exhibiting "lack of personal freedom" requires some bizarro reading of 'personal freedom'. The same thing goes for the idea that one who goes around doing whatever to satisfy hedonistic pleasure exhibits "enhanced personal freedom". I would have thought, if anything, just the opposite. After all, isn't 'personal freedom' supposed to be about autonomy, as in self-governance? One who chooses to do what he knows to be the right thing to do is one who is making considered choices that faithfully reflect his knowledge, beliefs, values, character traits, etc; and that seems as free as anyone can possibly be, when one is directing his actions in a way that genuinely reflects those features that make him who he is. On the other hand, it is doubtful that one who follows hedonistic pleasure wherever it takes her is as free as she could be, since it is likely in that case that at least some of her choices are plagued by impulses that are at odds with what she knows deep down are in her better interests and thus betray to some extent the person she is. Of course, whodey can respond that this is exactly the point, that one who simply follows hedonistic pleasure in a way that ostensibly exhibits enhanced freedom only ends up betraying his autonomy; whereas the one who restricts himself to what he knows is right in a way that ostensibly inhibits his freedom is the one who actually fully realizes autonomy. Uhm, okay; but the funnel analogy still makes no sense, for a whole host of reasons.

I'll tell you why *I* think this pastor relayed such a daft analogy. He probably understands on some level that religious ethics suppress autonomy. Consider divine command, for example. This is roughly the idea that what is good or bad is determined by the commands of God. This system does suppress freedom, or autonomy, since one is expected to submit to the proclamations of a putative authority, even if it happened to be that one's understanding is at odds with those proclamations. So, this could represent the base of the funnel, where one's freedom is supposedly suppressed. The pastor is trying to imply that -- however -- in submitting to the will of another, though ostensibly at odds with one's autonomy, everything will turn out swell and one's personal freedom will grow as the funnel is tipped over. That sounds great, but it is emphatically false. Not only does a system like divine command not conduce to enhanced freedom, it is not really even compatible with sustained moral development or enhanced freedom. The reason why it is not compatible with such things is rather straightforward. Under such a system, one's reasons are determined by the proclamations of the putative authority, like rules that are handed down. Now, even if it is the case that they are good reasons and good rules, acting on them in good faith and reaping whatever benefits of having done so is surely not sufficient for the realization or growth of personal freedom. Moral development and the realization of personal autonomy requires that one come to understand, through reflection, questioning attitude and inquiry and the like, why his reasons are good or justified, why the rules are worthy of being followed, etc. In other words, to exhibit genuine freedom, it is not good enough to follow good rules and reap the benefits; one actually has to have some touch with the underlying justification that explains the moral worth of such actions. This will ensure that his actions represent, in some genuine manner, his own evaluative commitments, which is an essential piece of the puzzle to personal autonomy. But, to come to such an understanding would basically imply the very denial of divine command, since if there are underlying reasons that justify or explain the goodness of those courses of action, then it cannot be that their goodness is due constitutively to God's commanding them, it could not be that God's commanding them is explanatorily prior to their goodness, etc.

This, as I understand it, is the pastor's intended point. That in submitting to the will of God, in making one's own will thus subordinate, in relinquishing personal freedom in this way; it will in the long run actually conduce to personal freedom (somehow, in some unspecified way, that is related to some vague analogy with a funnel). Well, that's obviously false. There's no reason at all to think submitting to some set of guidelines handed down to you will end up conducing to your personal freedom; and merely reaping benefits from employing such guidelines (supposing they are good ones) has nothing to do with conducing to your autonomy, either. The thing that conduces to your freedom is your coming to have contact with the underlying considerations that confer justificatory status on your actions and your aligning them accordingly with your own evaluative commitments.

In reality, we all probably go through some manner of the upside down funnel, in which our autonomy is initially immature but then grows, matures, and becomes more fully actualized. It's called growing up and developing into a mature adult. The ironic thing here is that religious systems of ethics, such as those the pastor would endorse, characteristically only end up subverting this process. They tend to be reinforcingly childish in a way that typically only stunts both one's moral development and the maturation of one's autonomy.

One piece of good news to all this is that idea that "enhanced personal freedom" at the top of the funnel equates to acts of pure hedonism is just some ridiculous caricature. People can be as free as they can possibly be and still be characteristically responsible, virtuous, prudent, etc.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I do not see how this addresses my question.

The idea that one who enacts a disciplined regimen of doing what he knows to be the right thing to do is exhibiting "lack of personal freedom" requires some bizarro reading of 'personal freedom'. The same thing goes for the idea that one who goes around doing whatever to satisfy hedonistic pleasure exhibits ...[text shortened]... e and still be characteristically responsible, virtuous, prudent, etc.

I thought it was said well, you do what you want all the time your base or
lower nature will run your life into the ground. Disease, incarceration, someone
killing or maiming you due to your actions through offense or some other
perceived cause, being left alone due to untrustworthiness, or selfishness just
seems like it does indeed limit your options in life. The eat drink and be merry
crowd who burn the candle on both end do tend to burn out much quicker.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I thought it was said well,

The problem with the OP is that it equates reckless behaviour with 'personal freedom', then claims that people who moderate their behaviour gain personal freedom over time. The problem is that this gained personal freedom is apparently not reckless behaviour.
Its interesting that not only did the poster refuse to address this issue, but another poster specifically told him not to address it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I thought it was said well, you do what you want all the time your base or
lower nature will run your life into the ground. Disease, incarceration, someone
killing or maiming you due to your actions through offense or some other
perceived cause, being left alone due to untrustworthiness, or selfishness just
seems like it does indeed limit your options i ...[text shortened]... ink and be merry
crowd who burn the candle on both end do tend to burn out much quicker.
Kelly

I do not think it was well said for reasons I already discussed in detail and for several others I omitted. For instance, as twhitehead astutely points out, the analogy fails to be internally consistent in the way it represents the top (bottom) of the funnel to be associated with hedonistic (non-hedonistic) behavior on one hand and non-hedonistic (hedonistic) behavior on the other, all at the same time. Let's all quit pretending that the analogy makes any sense in such regards. As I tried to make clear, if whodey is simply trying to make the point that doing what one knows is right relates/conduces to enhanced freedom whereas blindly following hedonistic impulses does not, then fine. We don't need any bizarre funnel analogy to understand this point. However, if as I suspect the actual chief point of this pastor had to do with the different claim that submitting to the will of God can be expected to conduce to personal freedom; then, as I already discussed, this claim is false.

Also, I do not agree with your assumptions regarding "lower" nature. This is yet another way in which your religion has significantly diluted your ability to function as an autonomous individual, by deluding you that your base nature is somehow inferior and adequate. This negatively impacts your confidence in your own judgments and evaluative commitments and increases the probability that you will be content to slavishly submit to the will of another without having any actual familiarity with the underlying justifications of your actions. This is another one of the unfortunate and self-serving aspects of your religion.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I do not think it was well said for reasons I already discussed in detail and for several others I omitted. For instance, as twhitehead astutely points out, the analogy fails to be internally consistent in the way it represents the top (bottom) of the funnel to be associated with hedonistic (non-hedonistic) behavior on one hand and non-hedonistic (hedoni ...[text shortened]... actions. This is another one of the unfortunate and self-serving aspects of your religion.

I'm not sure where you think my 'religion' shaped my views on what I call the
'lower' nature. I didn't become a Christian until I was 25 years old, wasn't
raised in a church, didn't have someone from the time I was growing up telling
me about God and sin. I was without a doubt living the way I wanted to during
those years and 'lower' nature does describe it quite well, no religion required
to let me know where it can lead as I've friends that ended up in all the places
I've described to you. I'm not assuming I'm remembering what it was like.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I said before, the idea is that after you discipline yourself you will not desire to do drugs or have illicit sex. Your desire will be to do all the things that make your life better. I think that includes many things you are free to do once you know how to make the right decisions. Otherwise, you may never see the day to have the opportunity to make those decisions.

I did that in my life but didn't need religion to do it.
I can expand on that if you want but that is true.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I did that in my life but didn't need religion to do it.
I can expand on that if you want but that is true.

I think it is the atheists that claim they have no religion. So are you saying your parents were atheists?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think it is the atheists that claim they have no religion. So are you saying your parents were atheists?

Why do you think it matters what one's parents religion or lack thereof has to do with me? I am my own person, wasn't influenced in any way by my parents lack or love of religion. BTW, I had one of each type.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why do you think it matters what one's parents religion or lack thereof has to do with me? I am my own person, wasn't influenced in any way by my parents lack or love of religion. BTW, I had one of each type.

It is just my opinion that a child is usually influence about what is good or bad in some way by the custodial parents. Perhaps, you are an exception.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is just my opinion that a child is usually influence about what is good or bad in some way by the custodial parents. Perhaps, you are an exception.

I would say you are correct for the most part. I am in the one percent crowd brainwise so I can't be looked at as an indicator. I would have rebelled no matter what, it seems to me. If they were both atheists I might have become a monk....

Like I said before, I saw the hypocrisy in christianity at the age of 8 and haven't looked back since.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not sure where you think my 'religion' shaped my views on what I call the
'lower' nature. I didn't become a Christian until I was 25 years old, wasn't
raised in a church, didn't have someone from the time I was growing up telling
me about God and sin. I was without a doubt living the way I wanted to during
those years and 'lower' nature does describ ...[text shortened]...
I've described to you. I'm not assuming I'm remembering what it was like.
Kelly

I would wager that you are simply unaware to what extent your religion has helped shape/reinforce your views on our so-called "lower" nature.

Hey, if you really believe that we are such a defective product, then obviously you should take issue with the one you think mass produced us.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I would wager that you are simply unaware to what extent your religion has helped shape/reinforce your views on our so-called "lower" nature.

Hey, if you really believe that we are such a defective product, then obviously you should take issue with the one you think mass produced us.

Take issue that I'm allowed to make choices I shouldn't? I do have to say that
I may have done what you suggested, when I compared my life now to where
I was and where I was headed, mainly due to the contrast in my life now. I've
a lot more choices than one of my brothers who never changed, and his
choices get smaller all the time. So I credit Jesus Christ for that I don't blame
Him, why should I have an issue with the one who threw me a life preserver or
better said, became a my life preserver?
Kelly