I asked ChatGPT: "What is more important? Truth or Freedom? You can only pick one". It answered:
"While truth is undeniably crucial, the freedom to seek, express, and challenge truths is what ultimately drives human progress and ensures that truth is not imposed by authority but discovered through collective effort. Thus, if forced to choose, freedom might be the more essential value, as it underpins the very processes that allow us to find and uphold truth"
Freedom is a presupposition to truth. If you cannot search for it without constraints, you won't find it. As Feynman said, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."
Awesome to see this acknowledged in ChatGPT, which basically represents the current state of human knowledge.
In the United States, the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 was a watershed moment, embedding freedom of speech as a fundamental right. - This statement "seems" correct, yet it is 100% wrong. The purpose was not to create free speech as a fundamental right. as the right to free speech was considered as a natural right given to all men by their creator. The 1st amendment's purpose was to prevent government from restricting that already pre-existing right that every man already had. Our rights exist apart from government, not because of government.
In the words of George Orwell, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Also to hear what may not tickle the ear 🤓
I never really thought about writing a bio. Is it important who I am? I would think that the ideas that I am spreading are way more significant than I am.
On the one hand, I see the point that a backstory gives everything another flaver. On the other hand, if one relies too much on someone's backstory, one risks sliding into credentialism.
Social constructs will naturally take care of people who do that kind of thing, just like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. I think it's a slippery slope once there are laws against any speech.
I asked ChatGPT: "What is more important? Truth or Freedom? You can only pick one". It answered:
"While truth is undeniably crucial, the freedom to seek, express, and challenge truths is what ultimately drives human progress and ensures that truth is not imposed by authority but discovered through collective effort. Thus, if forced to choose, freedom might be the more essential value, as it underpins the very processes that allow us to find and uphold truth"
Freedom is a presupposition to truth. If you cannot search for it without constraints, you won't find it. As Feynman said, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."
Awesome to see this acknowledged in ChatGPT, which basically represents the current state of human knowledge.
In the United States, the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 was a watershed moment, embedding freedom of speech as a fundamental right. - This statement "seems" correct, yet it is 100% wrong. The purpose was not to create free speech as a fundamental right. as the right to free speech was considered as a natural right given to all men by their creator. The 1st amendment's purpose was to prevent government from restricting that already pre-existing right that every man already had. Our rights exist apart from government, not because of government.
Agreed. If you think rights come from the state, there is no reason why the state couldn’t just take them away from you again.
In the words of George Orwell, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Also to hear what may not tickle the ear 🤓
Who are you David Jakle? There is no bio in your about info.
I never really thought about writing a bio. Is it important who I am? I would think that the ideas that I am spreading are way more significant than I am.
Where you came from and your education would lend support to your ideas. I think. What do you think?
On the one hand, I see the point that a backstory gives everything another flaver. On the other hand, if one relies too much on someone's backstory, one risks sliding into credentialism.
I might write a bit about that one day, thanks for the suggestion. For now, feel free to take a look at my personal social accounts: https://www.instagram.com/jaekle18/ and https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-jaekle/
Thanks
Now I’m in a conundrum.
It decays faster, further when correctly prohibited speech isn’t prosecuted. Sedition and incitement.
Correctly prohibited speech like suggesting covid came from a lab, for example?
I think he means like “fire” in a crowd.
Social constructs will naturally take care of people who do that kind of thing, just like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. I think it's a slippery slope once there are laws against any speech.