Justin S. said:Speed and Cythraul,
I will try to briefly clarify my statements on freedom. They are certainly not derived from Nietzschean ideas of "will to power", and generally speaking, I dislike him specifically for his "haughtiness". My curt manner is not an arrogant boasting, but more like crabbiness (with a weary smile of course) due to the difficulties of making oneself understood.
My statement, "Its quite laughable to talk about "freedom" in any era, but especially so in ours" is sweeping, and requires the reader to infer a lot, probably too much. I followed with another statement that, while still very broad, makes several important distinctions, "for one to suppose that the categorical concept "freedom" is meaningful or is an actual condition is to ignore states of being." This says that we are talking about freedom, not vaguely, or it as such, but the categorical condition that is the common understanding (to be "free", in opposition to not-free, obligated, controlled, mitigated, oppressed, bound, etc.). It says that this understanding ignores all states of being, the many simultaneous states and conditions of our existence.
I must say what I mean by "freedom". In this thread, Im responding to this word in terms of its most popular and potent use (its effect), not by what I think of it, nor Plato, nor Kant or Heidegger. The word-concept "freedom" has incredibly powerful social/psychological effects that steam from very shoddy metaphysics, not the elaborations of careful thinkers.
Free-dom, the state of "free", the absence of restraint (possibly necessity), the availability and exercise of choice and independence, freedom from some controlling force, freedom to exercise will in some manner. 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 all 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, policies, and conditions that determine our existence, a language that structures and sets limits to thought and conceptualization. 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 a metaphysical system.
A much more rigorous idea is that of our "free play", the room for our engagement within the conditions of our existence.
I had an inkling you had something like this in mind; i just wanted you to say it (as I enjoy your philosophical comprehension), instead of coming across as a pompous jerk who was dismissing and bitching without any real reason. In fact, I think this calls for a new thread--the Freedom thread.
I'd like to talk about this statement below, here, or in a seperate thread (which it deserves and demands):
Justin S. said:
