"Freedom"

[Justin S.]

A broader discussion of "freedom" was requested after a recent tangent of mine touched upon it. A circumspect discussion of the word-concept "freedom" might prevent many of the tangled and irresolvable arguments that occur when using it (such as the free will thread) without cautious reflection upon what it means, entails, or presupposes, and after such thoughts, if it retains a palatable sense at all.

I previously wrote, "For one to suppose that the categorical concept "freedom" is meaningful or an actual condition is to ignore states of being."

And later,

"Free-dom, the state of "free", the absence of restraint and necessity, the availability and exercise of choice and independence, freedom from controlling force, freedom to exercise will. This concept is pure fantasy when understood categorically (I would argue that this is now entrenched in the very construction of the word).

It thinks not of "thrown-ness", the condition of existence we in each case find ourselves. It disregards our being-in-the-world, that we are assailed by presence, and do not choose how something can come to exist (the enabling condition of being), it is oblivious to historicity, that we are a lineage of genetics and acculturation, we are born into a family, community, society, hierarchy, with endless restrictions, rules, and policies that condition our existence, languages that structure and set limits to conceptualization and expression. Freedom clings to linear causality, a reductionist method that seeks to tear states of affairs from their context to "simplify matters" and affirm the fleeting power of human will. This, and so much more that I cannot list, is what the category "freedom" passes over and obliterates once set as a foundation for metaphysical systems.

A much more rigorous idea is that of our "free play", the room for our engagement (negotiation) within the conditions of our existence."

I would like to emphasize some of the above. Free-dom (remember I am discussing this categorically, such as "Land of the Free" or "freewill"), the state of being free, presupposes the concept "free", that "free" is an actual relationship (or rather a state with no relationships). This, to me, is the heart of the problem, and precisely what I meant by "ignores states of being".

Freedom denies being.

A robust ontology acknowledges simultaneous and parallel relationships (states of being). A metaphysics of categorical freedom is quite extreme, and dispenses with the complexity of existence in one stroke. Ontology says, "being is a burdening"; freedom arises in response to this, motivated primarily by denial, and announces, "there is nothing outside unmitigated will."

Both "deconstruction" and psychoanalysis reveal more of the framework and impetus for freedom. First, as deconstructionist texts (all texts) show so brilliantly (and Im generalizing greatly here), "categories" undermine themselves during formulation. This is a grievous blow to both "free" and "free-dom". Furthermore, the motivation for positing "free" owes much to compensation recoiling from assailed existence.

I hope this sheds light on why I find discussions that make use of "freedom" as something viable uninteresting and distasteful (what amounts to common denial), and wish to shift our focus to "free play" or the space for negotiation within ontology (and thereby, actual and potent will).

 

[Norsemaiden]

One can have "freedom from" something and one can have "freedom to do" something, but never simply "freedom" per se. It is a word that can only make sense in a meaningful context.

The word "freedom" is used politically to manipulate people. I think this dates from the French Revolution, where it was one of the three rallying cries "Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite" - "Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood". Equality is a word that is likewise meaningless without stipulating what is to be equal with what, and in what sense equal.

People can have such a fervent belief in these meaningless concepts that they can be made to fight to the death in defense of them.

 

[speed]

A broader discussion of "freedom" was requested after a recent tangent of mine touched upon it. A circumspect discussion of the word-concept "freedom" might prevent many of the tangled and irresolvable arguments that occur when using it (such as the free will thread) without cautious reflection upon what it means, entails, or presupposes, and after such thoughts, if it retains a palatable sense at all.

I previously wrote, "For one to suppose that the categorical concept "freedom" is meaningful or an actual condition is to ignore states of being."

And later,

I would like to emphasize some of the above. Free-dom (remember I am discussing this categorically, such as "Land of the Free" or "freewill"), the state of being free, presupposes the concept "free", that "free" is an actual relationship (or rather a state with no relationships). This, to me, is the heart of the problem, and precisely what I meant by "ignores states of being".

Freedom denies being.

A robust ontology acknowledges simultaneous and parallel relationships (states of being). A metaphysics of categorical freedom is quite extreme, and dispenses with the complexity of existence in one stroke. Ontology says, "being is a burdening"; freedom arises in response to this, motivated primarily by denial, and announces, "there is nothing outside unmitigated will."

Both "deconstruction" and psychoanalysis reveal more of the framework and impetus for freedom. First, as deconstructionist texts (all texts) show so brilliantly (and Im generalizing greatly here), "categories" undermine themselves during formulation. This is a grievous blow to both "free" and "free-dom". Furthermore, the motivation for positing "free" owes much to compensation recoiling from assailed existence.

I hope this sheds light on why I find discussions that make use of "freedom" as something viable uninteresting and distasteful (what amounts to common denial), and wish to shift our focus to "free play" or the space for negotiation within ontology (and thereby, actual and potent will).

I think this thread is incredibly important due to the current philosophical, or philosophically influenced climate in the United States, and for the matter, most of the world.

John Stuart Mill, John Locke, and by extension neo-classical economics(Marshall, Menger, Walras, Pareto, Hayek, and so on), John Rawls, and the drive towards free markets, etc., essentially holds that freedom ( as in negative freedom) of man socially, politically, and economically from State influence is the highest aim; or as Mill states:

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

Since this view has essentially shaped the present world we live in today, it is very important to totally understand what "freedom" really is. And its especially important to realize that in America at least, such political and social freedom has been slowly stripped since really Oliver Wendel Holmes ruling on Clear and Present Danger to the State ( I forget the case, surely someone remembers), and the resulting increase of police and health and safety powers of the government. Today, we essentially have the freedom to act in our economic best interest, and nothing more. In effect, freedom has become economic freedom; yet, if one really thinks about it, and reads Justin S' conclusions, one will come to the conclusion that even this economic freedom is entirely out of ones control.

 

[fah-q]

Since this view has essentially shaped the present world we live in today, it is very important to totally understand what "freedom" really is. And its especially important to realize that in America at least, such political and social freedom has been slowly stripped since really Oliver Wendel Holmes ruling on Clear and Present Danger to the State ( I forget the case, surely someone remembers), and the resulting increase of police and health and safety powers of the government. Today, we essentially have the freedom to act in our economic best interest, and nothing more. In effect, freedom has become economic freedom; yet, if one really thinks about it, and reads Justin S' conclusions, one will come to the conclusion that even this economic freedom is entirely out of ones control.

If I am reading this correctly (with me, there is always a chance I am not) I could not agree more. In the US at least, it appears that the gov't has slowly over-legislated anything they can under the guise that they are creating a safer way of life for us. As if we need the gov't to save us from ourselves. Everytime I turn around, there seems to be a new stop sign, lowered speed limits, legislation against smoking in public (I don't smoke), stricter gun laws etc. It is almost as if the gov't doesn't believe we are smart enough to make a decision on our own.
The flip side of that coin is that some of us really are so ignorant that we need supervision. Case in point, there is a sticker on my iron I look at everyday that warns me not to iron my clothes while wearing them. My old iron didn't have that sticker. I used to burn myself all the time!

 

[speed]

If I am reading this correctly (with me, there is always a chance I am not) I could not agree more. In the US at least, it appears that the gov't has slowly over-legislated anything they can under the guise that they are creating a safer way of life for us. As if we need the gov't to save us from ourselves. Everytime I turn around, there seems to be a new stop sign, lowered speed limits, legislation against smoking in public (I don't smoke), stricter gun laws etc. It is almost as if the gov't doesn't believe we are smart enough to make a decision on our own.
The flip side of that coin is that some of us really are so ignorant that we need supervision. Case in point, there is a sticker on my iron I look at everyday that warns me not to iron my clothes while wearing them. My old iron didn't have that sticker. I used to burn myself all the time!

It is rather disgusting isnt it? The litigious nature of our society, as well as the now sacrosanct belief that the government is now responsible for our health; and any criticism about such, is treated with shock. The sickening thing, is both republicans and liberals (especially our conservative and liberal supreme courts--both under Burger and Rehnquist, greatly expanded these powers as well).

 

[fah-q]

It is rather disgusting isnt it? The litigious nature of our society, as well as the now sacrosanct belief that the government is now responsible for our health; and any criticism about such, is treated with shock. The sickening thing, is both republicans and liberals (especially our conservative and liberal supreme courts--both under Burger and Rehnquist, greatly expanded these powers as well).

It would appear that we are not members of the "shit-happens" generation. What are the first words out of someones mouth when they hear of an unfortunate situation you may have been involved in. "You should sue" Is it pride, greed or one-upsmanship that motivates us in these situations?

 

[The Bringer]

It would appear that we are not members of the "shit-happens" generation. What are the first words out of someones mouth when they hear of an unfortunate situation you may have been involved in. "You should sue" Is it pride, greed or one-upsmanship that motivates us in these situations?

It is consumer driven capitalism.

In regards to "freedom", the word really has no meaning (or could mean many things) alone. Just general ideology behind the word "freedom" is what gets Americans into an uproar when a talking head (like Bush) uses it in a twisted context.

 

[Blowtus]

Forgive me if I try to simplify it too much... but surely freedom as a broad concept can still be a useful term even if many appear to misunderstand it? I agree that the idea of some sort of 'absolute' freedom is ridiculous - but surely the striving for a best balance, or average, of freedom is worthy? Effectively just empowering people to live their lives as well as they can / want, within the basic framework of 'the balance' such that certain individuals exercising their own will / desire / power do not end up lowering the general power / ability / desire of humanity in general?

Or perhaps that would need a new term...?

 

[Justin S.]

Forgive me if I try to simplify it too much... but surely freedom as a broad concept can still be a useful term even if many appear to misunderstand it? I agree that the idea of some sort of 'absolute' freedom is ridiculous - but surely the striving for a best balance, or average, of freedom is worthy? Effectively just empowering people to live their lives as well as they can / want, within the basic framework of 'the balance' such that certain individuals exercising their own will / desire / power do not end up lowering the general power / ability / desire of humanity in general?

Or perhaps that would need a new term...?

It has been suggested that freedom could retain meaning if used contextually (such as Norsemaiden's post), and in your response, if it is understood in terms of degrees (versus absolute).

These uses still seem problematic.

First, if freedom is used contextually, such as "free from/of smallpox", it operates as a sort of negation (free from smallpox = not having smallpox, or, in a state un-afflicted by smallpox). However, it is affected by the categorical use and its loftiness. "I am free from smallpox" has a different psychological effect than simply, "I dont have smallpox". It echoes some sense of "liberation" which is why I find it so problematic. The same would go for "Im drug free" having different connotations than "I dont use d-r-u-g-s." (spaced due to the ridiculous UM censorship)

These issues are present for the other contextual use of freedom as well (free to),where the word operates as denoting possibility (example, "Im free to submit this reply") Here too it retains certain effects from its categorical usage that communicate more than a simple possibility for me to click a button and post text.

Blowtus' post raises some interesting points. Can freedom be used in a broad sense, but understood to be limited in some way? Why use "free-dom" and create a linguistic/conceptual contradiction (free-dom, the words literally meaning a state free of restraint, used with an understanding of necessary restraint and mitigation)? I think your last question is fair- do we need a new term? I would ask, what concept are we trying to "preserve" a term for?

 

[Blowtus]

I see your qualm regarding the linguistic use of it, but wonder whether it's really a problem? Surely there are many, many words that have moved beyond all understanding that can be drawn from their roots as such - seems to me that is often the way language works.

I certainly think it would be an interesting and good subject for people to think a little more on - people rattling on about free speech and such and such tend to shit me at times, as though their actions exist in a vacuum.

To me, it seem the concept I was suggesting we want to preserve (a less self-oriented absence of restraints) really stems from a more mature understanding / care of people - I don't see that wordy terms would achieve that.