Is freedom more important than comfort?

Is freedom more important than comfort?

According to John Milton, yes.

According to women, no.

>According to someone who lived in comfort, yes

no.
ask your local homeless.
there's a difference between "being a part of society and following the rules of society in exchange for warmth, food and comfort" and "abandoning the self and being subjugated"

Define freedom. Define comfort.

Yes. Comfort breeds apathy and death

you can't be free if your basic necessities aren't met

freedom: doing what you want to do

comfort: getting the things you want

ok to quibble on the above working definitions, but that should be more than enough to get us started on a debate. the answer, unfortunately, is the same answer that most questions of this sort have: "it depends."

most people seem to have chosen exchanging about 40 hours of their freedom for the houses, food, iphones, music, literature, and availability of sexual partners that modern society provides.

meet them yourself with tooth and claw

Freedom becomes comfort. Natural selection weeds out those unfit to live freely and only those who are able survive. Perfectly adapted to the world they live in over the course of millenia they are equally free and comfortable. Socialism, state nationalism, capitalism and other ideologies that rest on the eternalisation of social constructs like human rights, borders and value hinder this process and catalyse long-term discomfort.

society will put you in prison for breaking the law

Fuck society, fuck the police and fuck modernity

these boys are gonna put you down, kid

why does the guy in the back look like a real life john cena photoshop?

Second one from the left reminds me of Gary Sinese.

Women want to be comforted by a free man, this is the natural way of things

It is. Liberal politicians advocate comfort so they can steal your freedom.

most people seem to have chosen exchanging about 40 hours of their freedom for the houses, food, i-phones etc.
People with nice jobs will agree and shitty jobs will tell you it's not worth it.
Free will is a matter of perspective.

That's stupid. You're an idiot if you actually think that.

ahh but even if one should be free of impediments, and be able to realise one's will, the construction and formulation of that will was not in one's power.

freedom is not opposed to participation in society but made possible by it, as freedom is the capacity not simply to make choices but participation in the formation of categories which determine choices, i.e. participation in politics, a polis, society.

Thanks for the input Schlomo

This is one of those bullshit philosophical questions because both are important in balance, freedom in itself is a form of comfort, comfort is a form of freedom.

If I had to choose one or the other I'd have to choose comfort, based on the way I live my life.

Stupidest post I seen all day, please return to whatever reddit associated site you came from

You need both and there is a trade-off between the two such that utility can be maximized according to specific chosen utility functions.

Overall most people in the developed world today have at least the minimum of both throughout their life.

Women don't need freedom because they don't have to compete for resources.

Dubious definitions there. I'd argue:
freedom: choosing your own destiny, including your own mistakes.
Comfort: Having your material needs provided for in abundance.

When you look at it like that the choice becomes obvious - freedom > comfort.

It's true and everyone knows it.

>muh balance
No. You're either free or you're not.
>freedom in itself is a form of comfort, comfort is a form of freedom.
BRAVO

Cuck

For me comfort. The people suffer very much in his works.

Cuck

>user talks about freedom
>tfw

>No. You're either free or you're not.

You're retarded, nobody is truly free. If somebody was absolutely free they would be god. Absolute freedom is nothing but rudderless chaos no sane person would actually want because we're designed to struggle within certain bounds nature imposes on us.

>people whose lives are enabled by cheap and outsourced labor will agree
Fixed it for you.

How does this change my argument. Greater freedom doesn't imply less comfort and less freedom doesn't imply more comfort. The concepts are completely unrelated so why are they being treated as mutually exclusive?

Isn't comfort freedom from something? What do you mean by "freedom"?

Because sometimes they are

Two things are either mutually exclusive or not. They are not "sometimes" mutually exclusive.

The local homeless are poor, and they're still bound and subjugated by societies laws and regulations and expectations. The primary factor that doesn't make them free is the lack of money, not the lack of a home, the rich have more freedom.

I mean, when are politicians really helping the people over the government -or so it would seem? The few presidents I can think of all have something in common.

spook thread