/lit/ - Literature

This is correct.

>freedom as we see it a non-concept
Are you asking whether it is an illusion?

I hope not; thisthread.jpg

Well, from the rarefied heights of thought, meaning the inherent ambiguity of causation and agency, and proceeding down to the very bottom of simple pragmatics, "freedom," isn't much of a concept in itself. I think it's important to distinguish between freedom in itself and freedom as a function or part of another dialogue, though. If I'm going to theorize about what freedom means, I end up shit creek without a paddle; if I'm talking about what powers and access I have or would like to have, and would be fully willing to extend to others as well because of benefits or avoidance of harms, then I'm getting into an area of real sentiment as well as thought: motivation can come from many different areas of thought, and yet still be motivated towards this point, the power and access, which then lends itself to the freedom in itself.
Yeah, I'm aware I'm just plain babbling about this, but it's a very vague question in the first place imo.

Was überhaupt gesagt werden kann, kann klar gesagt werden.


define shit man. this is an useless discussion

Man is condemned to be free - sartre

Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills - schopy

and hitchens said something along the lines of: we are free because we have no choice to be free.

there is nothing more you can add to that unless you can transcend existence.

Die Willensfeiheit besteht darin, dass kommende Ereignisse nicht gekannt werden können.

this is pretty much what it all comes down to. stop throwing around meaningless words.

>>2613294
Yeah, it is kinda vague, sorreh

I'm just interested in the fact that freedom as the unexamined notion many people idealize, is kinda a negative quality. If I define freedom as a lack of restraints, obligations, pressing duties, etc. societal or social or otherwise, would I be far off how we usually conceptualize the notion? And if so, would it be wrong to think this is not much to really aim for, it being basically a sort of 'nothing'? (this is not to demean the people that suffer from a real lack of freedom but to consider the way we think of the concept) Could we think of a positive way of defining as Hegel does in an authentic relationship with the state and society? Is Hegel right or could we do better? These are the sort of problems I'm thinking of.

>>2613316
i reckon you've just defined it as unobtainable.

>>2613316
do we really need the concept at all?

>>2613302
Yeah, if my next post doesn't serve you, let me know. I was more throwing the word 'freedom' round to get the unexamined notion some hold of it. I go on to describe this unexamined notion in that next post. This is what a lot of analytical philosophers are interested in to be fair, (partly seeing as it's probably the only way they can get to brass tacks with some of their more complex thought experiments, I'm thinking guys like Bernard Williams and Parfit)

>>2613321
Well, not unobtainable, if we can redefine it, which I think we really should do.
>>2613324
Insofar as it has long been a concept for humans and insofar as we shouldn't think there is any inherent virtue in dispelling our constructions on nature, I think we do need this concept.

>>2613334
>to get the unexamined notion some hold of it
to get some hold/concept of the unexamined notion we have of it

>This is what a lot of analytical philosophers are interested in to be fair,
i.e. unexamined notions, popular thought, our linguistically determined conceptions of things etc.

>>2613316
Try reading Two concepts of Liberty by Isaiah Berlin.

What you describe is Berlin´s "negative freedom", i.e. freedom from others´ interference with whatever you may want to do. "Positive freedom" is a kind of entitlement or privilege, like suffrage.

>>2613334
technically freedom would be making decision without being coerced or influenced in any way (in an absolute void with just your own individual consciousness to observe and value different aspects of the world at a whim). That's not where we're at. We exist, observe and judge in relation to things and people and their own judgements and observations. Influence on our decisions is inherent and may be overt or implicit. Any concept of freedom must be understood in this context as opposed to the void. which means you have to accept that people are going to enact decisions that aren't based solely off their own motivations. A dispassionate educator can only go so far in getting people to realise where they're being manipulated. Eventually it comes down to the individual and if they still assert their original conviction, then it's not so much 'freedom' that we're trying to measure or protect as it is 'contentedness'. Freedom in the context all men are familiar with (as opposed to deities) is simply the ability to 'follow your bliss'.