3 ms·

I have a dog right now. He enjoys my company. I don't think he's a captive. I love him, he loves me. I let him off leash and he generally stays nearby. Am

• godelski 6y ago
  I think it is fuzzy. How do we define this line? Cults will often confine people to a location until they have been sufficiently brainwashed. At which point they will let them loose, often used to gain more followers. Are these people captive? But maybe using captive in only a pejorative sense is the problem. I don't think my cat hates me (quite the opposite!), rather she follows me around like a puppy dog and is clearly excited when I get home. But it is difficult for me to conclude that she is free. I really think the term is fuzzy and the boundaries are not clearly defined. If that is true, then hyperbole can be useful for us to question and refine that boundary. Questioning if we ourselves are captive when we don't realize it. After all, that's what Huxley portrayed. I don't think people in his story would consider themselves captive, but outsiders would. We could say the same about cults or certain followings. To one faith may be shackles and to another it may be liberating. The boundary isn't clear.
  • xapata 6y ago
    Exactly. I'd use a different term than captive in this case. The situation isn't as extreme as for a cult member.
    • godelski 6y ago
      But you'd agree that your dog isn't "free," right? At least not in the sense that you are. I think it is reasonable to consider domestication a form of capture. And are you sure your dog doesn't have Stockholm syndrome?
      • xapata 6y ago
        I agree that my dog is less "free" than myself, but only because he is less self-aware. I like the philosophy that one is "free" to the extent one understands the various causes that constrain and motivate one's choices, because it sidesteps the need to answer the question of how much free will is possible given all the influences we face. Going back to the story's protagonist, using this definition of "free" it's not clear how much the protagonist is aware of these kinds of influences, and therefore we don't know where on the spectrum of freedom they'd be. I don't think Stockholm syndrome is relevant to the experience of a dog. First, Wikipedia says there's a bit of disagreement as to whether the phenomenon is real. Second, my guess is the mechanism for it relies on a human's sense of society and shame.
        • godelski 6y ago
          I don't actually like that definition and believe it is rather naive. Referring back to the cult example (extremes are easier to denote boundaries) we agree that a cult member is not free. Yet if you ask them they will say that they believe that they are free (many will insist that it is in fact you who is not free). This dictates that our usage requisites the ability to make this determination from outside one's own understanding of one's self. So either that cult member is free or freedom can't be based purely on one's understanding. I think sidestepping is an apt description, because it just ignores the nuance, which is what we're getting into here.
          • xapata 6y ago
            It may be a naive philosophy, but my choice of it is studied. If you're curious about the literature, check out discussion of Liebniz' view of free will. I didn't agree that the cult member was not free in a binary sense, because I don't believe freedom is binary. The cult members are free to the extent they understand the causes of their choices, which presumably is very little. If you're looking for nuance, then let's avoid binary definitions. One isn't either free or not free. Even 2-state transistors are actually only 2-state by approximation.
• seangrogg 6y ago
  What is protection/affection from one perspective can be captivity from another.
  • xapata 6y ago
    Indeed. Thus, to say the article's protagonist is in captivity is clearly a subjective judgement and not a fact.