Thanks for the response and further questions to reflect on.
I really don't understand why you think you are not capable of responding to questions asked. Do you think there has to be a 'perfect' or 'correct' answer?

Related to the 'intermediate case' of stories, you have not only read but have written meaningful content with meaning.

During the Literature Event, we talked about haiku and other types of Japanese poetry.
They can be simple or ambiguous. An understanding at the level of immediate perception or those with a deeper meaning. All kinds have a 'meaning'.

I wonder what you think of this article about Japanese Literature, in particular, this quote:

A decade after the works of English Romantic poets such as Shelley and William Wordsworth had influenced Japanese poetry, the translations made by Ueda Bin of the French Parnassian and Symbolist poets made an even more powerful impression.

Ueda wrote, “The function of symbols is to help create in the reader an emotional state similar to that in the poet’s mind; symbols do not necessarily communicate the same conception to everyone.” This view was borrowed from the West, but it accorded perfectly with the qualities of the tanka.

Because of the ambiguities of traditional Japanese poetic expression, it was natural for a given poem to produce different effects on different readers; the important thing, as in Symbolist poetry, was to communicate the poet’s mood. If the Japanese poets of the early 1900s had been urged to avoid contamination by foreign ideas, they would have declared that this was contrary to the spirit of an enlightened age. But when informed that eminent foreign poets preferred ambiguity to clarity, the Japanese responded with double enthusiasm. — Japanese Literature - Britannica

'old meaning — javi2541997

The phrase is 'any old' - it's an idiom.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/any%20old
Hope this helps!

Trying to answer this interesting topic, but not having 'enough' background to explore its nature. I must assume that I need to read more books related to philosophy because most of the time I only read Japanese literature — javi2541997

Well, literature is arguably just as, if not more important than philosophy when it comes to 'meaning'. The combination of the two, well...that kind of narrative impresses me much.

I think you are well-placed to answer at least one of the questions in the OP:

Stories and histories have meanings, though they vary between readers. Yet, any old meaning won't do. — hypericin

This acknowledges different interpretations (even translations) of text.
But why would 'any old meaning' not do?

There are more users who would have better and more precise answers than me, because they have a background in Linguistics and Philosophy, something that I don't. — javi2541997

OK. I understand what you mean. But would that still be 'enough' for you? Or just different and leading to even more theoretical questions. As if there aren't enough theories going the rounds.
What do we learn from them all circling and competing with each other in almost a spiral of confusion?
What is the key importance - implications and benefit - to humans and their communication.
How does a mess of philosophical theories help? When there are other more practical disciplines?

I am aware that some members would disagree about the way I see and understand 'meaning', because it is something that maybe goes beyond than just boxing in categories. — javi2541997

Of course! It would be surprising and boring if there were only one main understanding of 'meaning'.
My problem, I suppose, lies in the fixation of where the discussion should be placed.
It's fine if that is where the OP's main interest lies. But I think it narrows the exploration and would not necessarily have attracted those from other perspectives. We would have lost something...

[...] boxing this OP in the 'Philosophy of Language' category is just a personal opinion, which helps me to understand it. — javi2541997

It seems that it is more than 'just a personal opinion'. You have used your knowledge about Philosophy and its Concepts logically to make 'correct' premises. Do the scare quotes around 'correct' mean they are 'provisional' assumptions? Are there only 2 views/theories of 'meaning'? Perhaps, yes, if the spotlight zooms in on:

1. Semantic and 2. Foundational - as always there are lists of competing sub-theories and views.

The term “theory of meaning” has figured, in one way or another, in a great number of philosophical disputes over the last century. Unfortunately, this term has also been used to mean a great number of different things. In this entry, the focus is on two sorts of “theory of meaning”. The first sort of theory—a semantic theory—is a theory which assigns semantic contents to expressions of a language. The second sort of theory—a foundational theory of meaning—is a theory which states the facts in virtue of which expressions have the semantic contents that they have. — Theories of Meaning - SEP

I do not pretend to say if the OP is in the right or wrong direction of debating. I don't even have enough knowledge on the matter! — javi2541997

Why would the OP be considered a right or wrong direction? What would be 'enough knowledge'?
It's an exploration.
I like the way it flows with diverse perspectives, knowledge and experience. Zooming in and out.

Perhaps, it's time to ask what prompted @hypericin to ask the questions in the OP?

Before trying to understand a concept in philosophy, I think about which category the concept should be. Using this 'logic', it helps me to make the 'correct' premises. Something like meaning and concepts can be seen in two different views: epistemology (if it is a form of knowledge) or metaphysics (if it depends on the truth/reality of our knowledge) and more precisely, I would include this exchange in a subcategory: Philosophy of Language or "metalinguistics". — javi2541997

So is the above an explanation of a Kant-Friesian approach? :

Well, it turns out that it is a matter of metaphysics, and specifically speaking, "A Kant-Friesian" approach. — javi2541997

Again, I confess to being confused.

I clicked on the link you provided and found myself lost.
I extracted a quote:

The theory of universals also gives us the theory of meaning, since meaning consists of abstract properties, so that meaning is also an artifact of the forms of necessity, both the meaning of words and the meaning of things -- of life and the world. The complete theory thus has required some distinctive elements of Kant-Friesian doctrine, including Kantian empirical realism and transcendental idealism, restated as ontological undecidability (http://www.friesian.com/undecd-1.htm), and a Friesian theory of the modes of necessity (http://www.friesian.com/system.htm). Deeper issues of meaning, both for the ultimate significance of matters of value and for religious questions, concern other aspects of Friesian metaphysics (http://www.friesian.com/metaphys.htm) and epistemology (http://www.friesian.com/epistem.htm).

The links led to both metaphysics and epistemology. A fascinating 'Deuteronomy'.
So, I'm still not clear how you arrived at your conclusion.

Your approach is to decide which category a philosophical concept should be boxed.
You seem to suggest that this discussion (see underlined) should rest in a subcategory:
Philosophy of Language.

However, this is a main category distinct from 'Metaphysics and Epistemology', according to TPF.

Either way, @hypericin placed it in 'General Discussion' for a reason, reflected in the OP.
The exploration of 'meaning' involves more than philosophical definitions. It is interdisciplinary:

...the authors arrive at a list of about 16 different definitions in use by "reputable philosophers" not counting its use in phrases like "the meaning of life", mentioned in the op, which they dismiss as meaningless. — unenlightened

I could go on about TPF Categories but this is not the time or place.

A sign of wisdom! — unenlightened

Or laziness or full to the brim.

A book defining a word uses several thousand other words, each requiring a similar book length analysis to establish the meaning of. — unenlightened

Kinda sounds about right, when it comes to philosophical definitions of concepts.

...the very foolish like me have to read the whole book, and complete idiots have to start all over again on the exact same damn word. — unenlightened

At the time, it was something you felt compelled to do. You learned something from it.
But sometimes we never learn and keep on looking for the one meaning that makes sense.
When there are multitudes...and deep down we know what it means, don't we?
Then, perhaps, we give a sigh when it all starts over...
But with a different slant, and others' views and experiences - it's interesting.

No way, I had a peek and that was enough, thank you.
Come on. Spit it out. Why did you mention this particular book? Does it hold a special meaning for you?

Read the book O ye lovers of definition, and despair. — unenlightened

Why would lovers of definition despair if they read the book?

My only contribution might be the above link, but I will be reading the replies in your thread because there are users who have more knowledge on this matter, and they would dive in (maybe). — javi2541997

I think the beauty of discussion lies not in how experts know things that others don't, rather the interaction between all lovers of meaning. What it is and how it is expressed.
Clearly, you have delved into this topic before and have come to this conclusion:

I was wondering if these questions were part of metaphysics or epistemology. Well, it turns out that it is a matter of metaphysics, and specifically speaking, "A Kant-Friesian" approach. — javi2541997

I'm confused. Perhaps you can explain what you mean?

Is there a unitary concept they share? — hypericin

we are essentially asking what sense did you make out of this artifact, behavior or phenomena, which is an open question — Tom Storm

Perhaps something like significance, resolution, comprehension, making-sense-of? "Meaning" seems to be a rather root or simple concept, not easily explicable in terms of other concepts. — Leontiskos

Yes. I think that sensemaking is key.
'Making-sense-of ' or 'sense-making' is a concept and a process. There will be disagreements as to its 'meaning' depending on context. Physical, mental or social. As in making sense of this discussion.
7 properties described in wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking

Then how did we learn it? — hypericin

The How is related to the Why. Does it start with confusion? About What. We seek direction and connection.To place, people and time. Questioning self and others. Past, present and future action.

I think it is complicated — hypericin

Yes. It can be. Like any other concept to be unravelled.

Words are not chosen at random, they meet the needs of the physical and cultural environments they find themselves in — hypericin

Yes. It's about interpreting events and uncertainties, ambiguities.
It helps in making decisions; taking action. We need to look, listen and learn.
The importance lies in not being fooled by others' use of words. Like politicians and their speeches.
To call it out when someone deliberately misinterprets your words and meaning.
We need to be clear. Knowing what we mean and how best to convey it.
I like the related concepts, below:

A 2014 review of the literature on sensemaking in organizations identified a dozen different categories of sensemaking and a half-dozen sensemaking related concepts (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).

The categories of sensemaking included: constituent-minded, cultural, ecological, environmental, future-oriented, intercultural, interpersonal, market, political, prosocial, prospective, and resourceful. The sensemaking-related concepts included: sensebreaking, sensedemanding, sense-exchanging, sensegiving, sensehiding, and sense specification. — Sensemaking - wiki

I like to see that you are still flowing around TPF - although the literary contest finished a month ago - because you often leave TPF for months.. — javi2541997

'Flowing around TPF' is at times a real joy and valuable. Other times not so much - but I wouldn't be without it - and like many others return after a break. To learn and discuss topics of interest, like this one.
I was going to write: 'Absence makes the heart grow fonder' and then wondered as to its origin.
And then, how true is it?

The exchange here is quite fascinating, ranging from poems, songs, novels, Shakespeare, letters of Benjamin Franklin, and so on...

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139744/who-is-the-author-of-absence-makes-the-heart-grow-fonder

Yet, I love to write. Whenever I finish a paragraph, although it can be mediocre, I feel good with myself. — javi2541997

And isn't that what it's all about - the Love.
It's actually the final word in Bradbury's chapter - 'Zen in the Art of Writing'.

The true test is in the doing. Be pragmatic, then. If you're not happy with the way your writing has gone, you might give my method a try.
If you do, I think you might easily find a new definition for Work.
And the word is LOVE.

Your mind is a good one and you share your thoughts generously. Thank you.

Iris Murdoch's differentiation of philosophical texts and literary texts, and the different implications for reading them ...
— 180 Proof
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m47A0AmqxQE — 180 Proof

Thanks. The interview is fascinating. We can almost see or feel the thinking process.
I am not sure I agree with everything Iris says but it is an authentic attempt to answer questions.
In black and white, the world has moved on a little... here, it goes slow and careful...

[...] exploring ambiguity and for clarifying in spite of ambiguity, respectively. — 180 Proof

Yes. But first you have to be aware and notice them.
Also any assumptions and bias we carry around. Examining our selves and questioning any fixed ideas. Like whot I had!

Re: How Do You Write? (Literary and Philosophy)
The way we think - foraging and and forging connection. What is that down to?

To start with, I suspect it comes down to each writer's practiced instincts for exploring ambiguity and for clarifying in spite of ambiguity, respectively. — 180 Proof

'Practiced instincts' - I think that phrase says it all. It combines the discipline and the 'letting go' aspects.
I have rebelled against regular practice as something only 'serious' writers would do. I've always felt my writing to be spontaneous - having to be in the right frame of mind. Wrong thinking!

Having read some more on the subject, I find myself now agreeing with:

My writing process is based on perseverance. — javi2541997

Yes, I think that's vital. Sometimes it doesn't flow - or even trickle; sometimes you have to wring out every word as from a heavy wet towel. — Vera Mont

Perseverance is not about success for me. It's a life-vest: I have to get something written every day, good, bad or lackluster - and it may well end up deleted on the next good day - simply in order to keep doing it. — Vera Mont

The flow seems to come and go. But it is more likely to arise if you already have the practice and experience of regular writing. No matter whether it's perfect - it's vital. A physical and mental necessity.

I can give one tiny piece of general advice: It you want to improve your description, read Bradbury. When I was 19, my first chief tech gave me an old paperback copy of Dandelion Wine. It was a revelation worthy of a fanfare by the celestial brass. I still consider him the grand master of evocative description. — Vera Mont

Again, thanks for the recommendation. So poetic and descriptive...
Recently, I discovered his 'Zen in the Art of Writing - Essays on Creativity'.

From there, 'Becoming a Writer' - Dorothea Brande. Here in Ch 5 and 6, I am following some advice to 'harness the unconscious' and 'writing on schedule'. Fascinating. Discipline and letting go.

Beautiful. Harvest Moon. Perfect. In every way.
Dreaming and dancing in the light...still in love with you...

Freedom as a practice rather than a 'thing' or value. Is it a commodity or an accommodation?
How free are we really? When do we realise we are not free?

Priyamvada Gopal (Faculty of English) discusses freedom as a practice rather than a value to be worshipped.

Freedom. A word redolent with benevolence. We like the idea of being “free”. We are outraged at the thought of being “un-free”. It is often presented to us as a polarity: free expression, free choice and democracy, on the one hand – and repression, censorship and autocracy on the other. We are to guard the former from the latter.
[...]
“Free speech” – rather than being the nurturing and encouragement of real courage and the opening up of the imagination to new possibilities – is in danger of becoming one of the great banalities of our day, trotted out much more by the establishment for explaining its more degraded moves than a channel for producing meaningful dissent that could lead to material alternatives for the majority.

As something “thingified” – to borrow a word from Aimé Césaire’s Discourse on Colonialism – freedom isn’t seen as a practice which requires constant, vigilant exercise on all our parts. It becomes, for example, something that must be transmitted through teaching from an already free West to the un-free zones of the world. — Opinion: How free are we really? - University of Cambridge

Better late than never...

Coronation Caricatures
https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/05/03/coronation-caricatures-has-charlie-hebdo-gone-too-far

Starting with Charlie Hebdo!
Then:

• Coronation: Putting out the Bibles - Harry and the Sacred Texts by Peter Brookes in The Times.
• Austrian caricaturist Marian Kamesky, titled ‘The King and The Queen Camilla’.
• Italian cartoonist Francesco Frank Federighi - King Charles III excitedly announcing the arrival of his imminent coronation with cymbals.
• Cuban artist Wimar Verdecia Fuentes - King Charles edging towards the crown.
• Dutch artist Tjeerd Royaards, the editorial cartoonist and cartoon editor for Cartoon Movement: Heavy lies the crown...The shadow of the late Queen Elizabeth II looms over this new era.

Another 4 before:
"FINALLY!" - Cuban artist Fabian Sotolongo - Charles waking up and celebrating, thrilled at the prospect of finally acceding to the throne. Who lies next to him in his bed...?

1. Freedom is the unknown, and the unthought. It is creativity. — unenlightened

2. When I am most free, I am least concerned about freedom and have no feeling of freedom. I make no choices at the crossroads, but dance to the rhythm of my heart. — unenlightened

3. I don't think I have defined it, except negatively. Even in mechanics this applies; the 'free' wheel is the one that is not tied by belt or gear but can move in- dependently. — unenlightened

Your thoughts remind me of the Tao Te Ching. Also, Zen.
I can't remember all the details but the freedom you describe seems similar. Would you agree?

1. Creativity. Its source and process seem to involve a letting go. An intuition or action which
arises when we don't think too hard. Or perhaps it comes after we have thought too hard. There is a tension and then a release. A freedom.

The following article notes 10 of Zen's antithetical traits which are often found in creative people.
Paradox being part of both; opposing characteristics held together in the growth of the whole.
The Zen concepts are in italics and come first. Excerpt:

1. Stillness in Movement. Highly creative people are intensely alive with an abundance of physical energy and a healthy dose of eros—and they seek stillness and quiet. They alternate enthusiasm and great concentration with periods of solitude for rest, reflection, and incubation. They are highly motivated yet need to withdraw periodically to tap their sources of insight and inspiration. They often seek the still point at the center of the wheel of action and exercise some form of contemplative practice. — Creativity and Zen - The Slender Thread

I'm not sure this is applicable to all creatives but worth considering?
The symbol of the wheel returns in 3.

2. No thoughts or feeling of freedom just relaxing or dancing in the moment. A blending and flowing.

Zen understands its freedom as expressed through an integrated mind and body. In order for this sense of freedom to be embodied, however, Zen emphasizes that a performer of any kind repeatedly undergoes mind-body training. Takuan calls this the “body’s learning,”—that is the core meaning of self-cultivation—because in the “body’s learning,” both the mind and the body are brought to action in one integrated whole. (The “body’s learning,” neurophysiologically speaking, is closely related to an activity of the cerebellum in conjunction with the hippocampus, although it is not only that.) When a skill or performing technique is learned through this method, one’s own body moves freely as it is habituated to move without waiting for a command from the mind. — Zen Freedom - SEP

I think the same kind of thing occurs in rock climbing and other sports. Being in the zone.

3. The Tao Te Ching. The negative space or 'emptiness' of the axle is necessary for a wheel to function.
Is this the same thing as a mental space without desire? The freedom of an open mind without judgement? Contemplation for wellbeing and balance.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 11

Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;
It is the center hole that makes it useful.
Shape clay into a vessel;
It is the space within that makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room;
It is the holes which make it useful.
Therefore profit comes from what is there;
Usefulness from what is not there. — Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu Ch11

Kierkegaard takes a different approach by acknowledging that a person is limited by possibilities of the world one must live in but that the personal is not reflected in it as a possibility. Freedom is the capability to do things. That requires a movement from oneself and an education through the school of possibilities. — Paine

Good to read another perspective. That freedom is a capability to do things makes sense to me.
The individual and their life move and are moved in cycles of birth, growth, loss, deterioration, death.
Life is the school whereby we become aware of possibilities and potential for growth, or otherwise.

I knew you would re-direct. So predictable, but appreciate the brevity!

Anyway, I suspect our seeming disagreement here might be mostly a matter of how we use language and what concepts/stories/metaphors we use to try to make sense of ourselves. Talking about parts of a person being master and slave is somewhat figurative. That said, I would argue that if something has parts, if it has a shape or form at all, it isn't an indivisible single or simple. You can, for the sake of convenience, draw a line around this collection of parts and treat it as one singular thing. But the fact remains that it is divisible. Even a perfect circle is divisible. A clump of clay is divisible. If something has form at all, there are internal relations. — petrichor

Very well explained. And supported by personal experience. Observation of mental states, emotions as they relate to the physical body, environment and circumstance is key to understanding issues of internal and external obstacles and freedoms...I think. Problem-solving as in pragmatics?

I appreciate your attempts to clarify your argument. Enough to say that I don't see freedom as a duty or moral freedom as a climax. The hierarchical model whereby the preceding freedoms are considered 'lower' doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps this is where a diagram might come in useful.

The perfection of moral freedom in terms of the preceding levels of freedom would be a "climax" because such a perfection would entail that society as a whole, a society full of developed, self-actualized individuals, looks at itself and says "yes, this is good, I would not have it any other way." Could such a thing ever happen!? It seems impossible, but if it was achieved, it seems worthy of the name "climax." It would be the peak you cannot move off of without descending, the summit. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is idealistic and heavy with absolutism.
I will leave it here, having given the argument enough time and attention. Thanks.

Freedom is optimal agency (i.e. antifragility) via solidarity against structural exploitation of stakeholders (them, many) by shareholders (us, few) that is policed by modes of systemic discrimination against (divide-n-control of) non-compliant stakeholders et al. — 180 Proof

And in plain English?

You know that's largely hypocrisy. — Vera Mont

Also based on a lack of knowledge or false beliefs about female physiology, behaviour, and roles.
The particular culture and societal norms; the need of/for males to show they were not emotional.
So, males too had limited freedom. Fine to have zeal and courage, a sense of righteous indignation but the feminine side had to be squashed.

Freedom is a human capacity that exists since the species is aware of its existence.
— Moral freedom - life persona
This sentence struck me as peculiar, not only because the last bit is nonsense, but how its truth resonates in the context of life. — Vera Mont

Yes. It wasn't the reason I chose that resource. Using google is a bit of hit or a miss. It can give limited results. I tend to go for the likes of SEP. But lighter alternatives can give pause to think and question.

Does it make sense to say that: Freedom is a human capacity? Is it a tool/ability to be used? How and in what respect?

Earlier in the discussion:

↪180 Proof
The function of freedom is to free someone else.
— Toni Morrison

Freedom, here, is related to its purpose.
One purpose lies in responsibility to self and others; a kind of personal quest to improve life. — Amity

This depends on access to the best knowledge available and the capacity to take action.

Capacity: legal competency; an individual's mental or physical ability; the faculty or potential for treating, experiencing, or appreciating; the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy.

Back to the troublesome sentence:
Does freedom (or human capability to know or free 'self' or another) exist because 'the species is aware of its existence'? Does the 'its' refer to 'freedom' or to our own existence? Both?
Awareness of ourselves and a sense of freedom. Isn't that a natural state of affairs? What we do with it - or our perception of it is what matters. It might be an illusion and we need to think or dig deeper:

We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom. — Slavoj Žižek

@180 Proof provided this quote but not its source.
I found it in his 'Five Jokes'. Click on the link to read the first! It helps in understanding this:

[...] We have all the freedoms one wants — the only thing missing is the “red ink”: We “feel free” because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom. What this lack of red ink means is that, today, all the main terms we use to designate the present conflict — “war on terror,” “democracy and freedom,” “human rights,” etc. — are false terms, mystifying our perception of the situation instead of allowing us to think it. The task today is to give the protesters red ink. — Five Jokes by Slavoj Žižek - MIT press reader

***
Finally, here's something about capability, as it relates to freedom:

The capability approach is a theoretical framework that entails two normative claims: first, the claim that the freedom to achieve well-being is of primary moral importance and, second, that well-being should be understood in terms of people’s capabilities and functionings.

Capabilities are the doings and beings that people can achieve if they so choose — their opportunity to do or be such things as being well-nourished, getting married, being educated, and travelling; functionings are capabilities that have been realized.

Whether someone can convert a set of means - resources and public goods - into a functioning (i.e., whether she has a particular capability) crucially depends on certain personal, sociopolitical, and environmental conditions, which, in the capability literature, are called ‘conversion factors.’

Capabilities have also been referred to as real or substantive freedoms as they denote the freedoms that have been cleared of any potential obstacles, in contrast to mere formal rights and freedoms. — The Capability Approach - SEP

No. My concern has more to do with the transfer of discussions to The Lounge without apparent notification or reason given at the time. Also, related to the descriptions of TPF categories and correct placements of topics. But I've said all this before.

Sorry Amity, — universeness

Why are you apologising to me?

My theory is that every thread should have a theme tune, because communication requires and assists a community to come together, and music is the food of love. — unenlightened

Yeah. Who could possibly disagree with that?!
But in practice...if everyone felt free to post any old 'freedom' song...hmmm...food fight!

Thanks to @unenlightened:

Sandy Denny was better than Joan Baez better even than Joni Mitchell at expressing the emotional intensity of a lyric. You need more...

I read her story on wiki. Such a sad and early death. Tributes include:

One of the most moving and beautiful voices this country has ever produced': Bob Stanley's short biography of an unsung hero of British folk music — Sounds of the 60s - Sandy Denny

Who Knows Where The Time Goes - Sandy Denny, composer, lyricist, singer.


Judy Collins sings and pays tribute to Sandy Denny andher late '60's classic,"Who Knows Where The Time Goes?" in a 2002 concert at the Wolftrap Farm amphitheater in Vienna, Virginia.


***
A bit less folk, a little more 'rock' with Fairport Convention:
Vocals: Sandy Denny
Background Vocalist: Richard Thompson
Guitar, Background Vocalist, Producer: Simon Nicol
Bass Guitar, Background Vocalist: Ashley Hutchings
Drums: Martin Lamble

One is enslaved by the master, but one is enslaved equally by one's fear of a beating. And if the slave is enslaved by his fear, the master is also enslaved by his desire. The master is addicted to power and luxury, and his fear is that the slaves will revolt and enslave him in turn and beat him. This is the story of unfreedom, of being a slave to desire and fear. This is the life of a well trained dog; this is not freedom for slave or for master. So it seems that no one can be free, while another is a slave - maybe one day... — unenlightened

Excellent summary and a well-chosen song.

An aside: I hadn't posted a YouTube of Joni Mitchell because I thought there was some TPF 'rule' restricting that - in a 'serious' philosophy discussion! Perhaps one or two in support of a position is fine...?

The function of freedom is to free someone else. — Toni Morrison

Freedom, here, is related to its purpose.
One purpose lies in responsibility to self and others; a kind of personal quest to improve life.
We tend to take the freedoms we have for granted until they are removed.
Sometimes it takes a song to get the picture, along with an explanation:

Big Yellow Taxi
by Joni Mitchell (1967-68)
[...]
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum *
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em

Hey farmer farmer
Put away that DDT * now
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees
Please!
[...]
— Big Yellow Taxi lyrics with footnotes - Joni Mitchell

***

Freedom requires knowledge of nature, and so we must study the sciences. We are natural creatures and must understand nature to understand ourselves. Likewise, we must master nature, “subdue it and have dominion over it,” in order to enact our will.

Freedom requires knowledge of the Logos, and so we must study philosophy, logic, and mathematics.

Freedom requires knowledge of the self, and so we must study psychology, the great works of art, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

[emphasis added]

Of course, knowledge is power. But there are many ways to learn about human aspects of life.
Even if I were to accept the 'we must' pre-requisites for freedom, it takes freedom to access certain types of knowledge. This and the capacity to study academic subjects are only available to those already free of obstacles.
Why would 'we' need to, far less, feel obliged to study psychology, the great works of art, etc. - when there are other ways to learn about self, life, humans; intra and inter-relationships?

The presentation here of freedom is that from a superior and elitist view. Dogmatic.
I question it and the moralistic attitude:

What is meant by a duty to be free?
And how does it follow that 'criminals have a right to be punished'? — Amity

Moral freedom always acts as a constraint on our actions, at both the individual and social levels. It is a check on the types of things individuals and institutions ought to do. In this way, it constrains all the lower types of freedom. — Count Timothy von Icarus

[emphasis added - to question]

The description of the concept of freedom as 'higher' and 'lower' troubles me.
I understand the view that we have 'higher' and 'lower' selves; the latter to be mastered.
I agree mostly with: (underlined the questionable part)

I think that idea depends on separating parts of "self". Desires, or drives are animal, or 'lower'; thought or reason is human and 'higher'. Emotion and instinct must be some kind of invisible buffer between the two layers. I don't subscribe to a theory of duality or divided self in normally functioning individuals; I think we operate on a constant interaction and feedback system, all parts of the brain contributing to what we experience, feel, think and do. — Vera Mont

1. Emotion (lower) was viewed as the opposite of 2. Reason (higher).
Unfortunately, it was related to the intellectual capacity of 1. Females v 2. Males. This prevailing attitude had consequences for freedom. It placed social and legal obstacles in the path of women in academia, medicine, in arguments for the freedom to vote etc. Gender inequalities.

Bridging the gap (or not):
https://philosophynow.org/issues/144/Reason_and_Emotion

With regards to 'moral freedom' acting as a constraint and a tickbox for what we must or ought to do - Who gets to decide? God or any equivalent deity?

***

It seems to me that freedom is what you want rid of, what you want to control and fix. — unenlightened

Yes. It seems that way, given that the climax is 'moral freedom':

For the individual, I think the path to freedom climaxes in moral freedom — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why is it a climax for you? And what, or who stimulates or seduces? Religious belief?

The concept of moral freedom has always existed. However, it was strengthened with the emergence of the various religions worldwide in the last two millennia.

The main influence of this concept is the presence of a heaven and a hell, which have similar characteristics although they are different in each religion.

Moral freedom is another way of seeing freedom and,in part, it is opposed to the original concept. Freedom is a human capacity that exists since the species is aware of its existence.

It is a concept that means being free from servitude and being able to carry out actions without being influenced by any external factor. — Moral freedom - life persona

[emphasis added]

***

An interesting article with prize-winning answers to the question:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/143/What_is_Freedom

The cartoon is from February, and it is criticizing the Turkish treatment of the Kurds. There were anti-Kurd pogroms in the seventies and eighties in the region where the earthquake was centred. — Jamal

Thanks for that information. I've edited the original post to clarify the timing.

EDIT: the fake outrage no doubt came from Turkish nationalists and Erdogan-loyalists. — Jamal

From the article, the cartoon received negative criticism from around the world.

freedom is the starting place, and we immediately make rules about it. — unenlightened

That makes sense to me. And then we fight about the rules...and what our natural rights are...
And so on. What would make a just society? When is it right to break the law?
As some of us have just discussed in the Crito thread...all questions still relevant...masters and slaves...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14629/crito-reading/p1
The repeated themes/arguments of Socrates, Crito and Socrates' 'Voice of the Laws' in Plato's Dialogue:

Justice, harm and retribution. Morality of the contract.
The main theme of obedience to law. — Amity

Thanks to @unenlightened: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/839740
Composer and lyricist - Bob Dylan

I'll Keep It With Mine - Fairport Convention - Sandy Denny taking lead vocals.

It does seem that people are quite 'free' not to do so. — wonderer1

Praise be and hallelujah!
Anything else you'd like to add? Feel free...-ish...

This is less in topic, so I didn't post any of that in the response, and I don't want to derail the thread by getting into that in depth, although I can send a PM if you're curious. Maybe I should have put the links at the bottom in case people were curious. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Better than a PM, perhaps your thinking and writing on certain aspects of freedom warrant their very own thread!? I agree that it would be easy to derail this one. Freedom to explore! But best to keep focus...I think. And yes, it helps that the links are now at the end.

This thread makes me feel nostalgic! I remember sharing cartoons with you when I was a very recent member of TPF. I missed its existence when it is pretty good, indeed. — javi2541997

Yeah, me too. I'd forgotten about it. Then @Vera Mont started a discussion: 'What is freedom?'.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14666/what-is-freedom

Introducing cartoons (and songs) would make it more 'Lounge' material, but I think they are a great way to explore and enjoy different aspects/issues. Lighter but still serious. Creative.

Freedom requires knowledge of nature, and so we must study the sciences. We are natural creatures and must understand nature to understand ourselves. Likewise, we must master nature, “subdue it and have dominion over it,” in order to enact our will.

Freedom requires knowledge of the Logos, and so we must study philosophy, logic, and mathematics.

Freedom requires knowledge of the self, and so we must study psychology, the great works of art, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We. Must. Must we? Really? So much freedom...for all...

Quick early morning thoughts re:

1. Is it possible for anyone to have total freedom?
2. What kinds of freedom can a person have?
3. What kinds of freedom can subgroups have within a greater society?
4. Are there natural, insurmountable limits to individual freedom?
5. Are socially imposed limits necessary?
6. Can and should all people have the same amount of personal freedom?
7. How do we distinguish a freedom from a right? — Vera Mont

1. No. Death might be the ultimate freedom.
2. As many as can be thought of but usually limited and categorised, as per: https://helpfulprofessor.com/types-of-freedom/
Freedoms to read, reflect, write, choose, roam and wonder...desire, fear, vote, pray, eat leaves.
3. What 'greater society' are you thinking of? Subgroups or tribes, there are many. Freedoms limited.
4.

By natural I mean something like a physical or psychological obstacle. — Vera Mont

So, yes.
5. What specifically do you mean by 'social' and 'imposition'?
6. How do you quantify 'amount' of personal freedom? The 'should' suggests an ethical component, as in @Count Timothy von Icarus's 'Duty and Punishment'. A squiggly can of worms, probably worth a thread of its own.

We have a moral duty to be free then, so that we can choose the good. This is why criminals have a right to be punished. We do not punish merely to deter crime. To do this is to treat another human being like an animal to be domesticated.

7. They are related; complex and overlap, according to type and context:
Bookmarked:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/
section 4 - Rights and Freedom
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#RighFree

Thanks.
But then I've just gone on to read, under the same heading:
The Essence of Freedom is What is Essential to It

[...] We are the midwives of the Absolute. We are Mary, the theotokos, giving birth to the Body of Christ, his Church. As the Blessed Virgin served to create his first physical body, so we now construct his immanent body through world history. We come together to form the Church and strive to fulfill its Marian mission of the creation of the Body of Christ.

I really don't see how this follows.

***

Edit: since writing the above, I note you added significantly more to your originally brief reply.

Apologies if this is a bit long. I have thought a lot on this and have some articles to draw on:
https://medium.com/@tkbrown413/why-freedom-is-the-key-to-happiness-be274bf5135c
https://medium.com/@tkbrown413/why-francis-fukuyamas-last-man-is-not-a-paradox-55310474e1fd
https://medium.com/@tkbrown413/freedom-requires-determinism-3cf4025d3c3d — Count Timothy von Icarus

I started on the first article and stopped short at this:

We have a duty to be free. This is why criminals have a right to be punished. — Why freedom is the key to happiness - tkbrown

What is meant by a duty to be free?
And how does it follow that 'criminals have a right to be punished'?