Are you free to act against your own will? — Banno
This freedom which we take for granted in all political theory and which even those who praise tyranny must still take into account is the very opposite of "inner freedom," the inward space into which men may escape from external coercion and feel free.
Every attempt to derive the concept of freedom from experiences in the political realm sounds strange and startling because all our theories in these matters are dominated by the notion that freedom is an attribute of will and thought much rather than of action.
Whatever occurs in this space of appearances is political by definition, even when it is not a direct product of action. What remains outside it, such as
the great feats of barbarian empires, may be impressive and noteworthy, but it is not political, strictly speaking.
And so, Mr. Travers, the need for a "guaranteed public realm" is because the appearance and maintenance of "boundaries between individuals" requires more than willing it to be so: — Paine
Because of the philosophic shift from action to will-power, from freedom as a state of being
manifest in action to the liberum arbitrium, the ideal of freedom ceased to be virtuosity in the sense we mentioned before and became sovereignty, the ideal of a free will, independent from other and eventually prevailing against them. The philosophic ancestry of our current political notion of freedom is still quite manifest in eighteenth-century political writers, when, for instance, Thomas
Paine insisted that "to be free it is sufficient [for man] that he wills
it," a word which Lafayette applied to the nation-state: "Pour qu'une nation salt libre, il suffit qu'elle veuille Vetre"
lol, this thread title is literally: Freedom is slavery. — Garrett Travers
Condemned to it, yes? It seems to me that to ask what freedom is without some qualification is to step into a trap. Freedom itself isn't anything. (Disagree? What is it, then, and how do you know?) More to the point is what do we, collectively we in some sense, say that freedom is in this year of 2022? And can we get any consensus on that? For clearly we cannot do what we want, and it's unlikely there was ever for most people a time when they could. — tim wood
For present purpose, I'll offer that having freedom is having access to realizing material possibility. And for that, adequate truth. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights seems a pretty good start and approximation — tim wood
Anyone taking the question seriously might care to consider just what it takes on the part of an astonishing number of people working in concert to make the world work so that most of us can just run our errands large and small. — tim wood
This doesn't address anything, it merely takes the concept of freedom and describes it as slavery. — Garrett Travers
It doesn't matter if it is political by definition, what matters is the philosophy guiding the body-politic — Garrett Travers
Maybe I'll read it to find out. — Garrett Travers
Make sense of this, please.Freedom is individual human action, as is demanded by your nation, — Garrett Travers
And this too.I know what freedom is because one, words have definitions, and two, I experience independence from interpersonal coercion and the biological imperative known as independent action. — Garrett Travers
I suppose. But name even a couple of actions you do that do not involve - require in some way - anyone else.There is no we. — Garrett Travers
Please make clear how this is freedom.to act according to one's desires, — Garrett Travers
The passage addresses freedom of the individual, as it has been expressed by Epictetus, for example, as an experience that is possible despite whatever condition or station of life one might find oneself in the world. Her intent to separate that meaning from the realm of political action is not dissimilar from your purpose in saying: — Paine
To speak of a just "body-politic" is to propose a "guaranteed public realm." Doubting that such a realm was given to us as a state of nature in the spirit of Rousseau is not the equivalent to saying that "humans as not having individual boundaries between one another." You are the one conflating the two ideas, Arendt distinguishes them from each other; — Paine
So, you just spent hundreds of words critiquing something you have not read. In the future, please indicate that is your condition before making a comment upon something. — Paine
Freedom is individual human action, as is demanded by your nation,
— Garrett Travers
Make sense of this, please. — tim wood
I know what freedom is because one, words have definitions, and two, I experience independence from interpersonal coercion and the biological imperative known as independent action. — Garrett Travers
I suppose. But name even a couple of actions you do that do not involve - require in some way - anyone else. — tim wood
Please make clear how this is freedom. — tim wood
Or more specifically - other's goals. Ethics is the relationship between one person's goals and another person's goals in whether they come into conflict or agree.This is obviously in tune with the point I've found myself obliged to make a few times recently, that ethics begins not when one considers oneself, but when one considers others. — Banno
Freedom is partly choice. The more choices the more freedom.Anyway, I'm linking to the Arendt essay in order to ask again her question: What is freedom?, and to give a space for considering her essay. Given the "freedom convoy" that trickled into Canberra yesterday, and the somewhat more effective equivalent in Canada, It seems appropriate. — Banno
Walking on what, where, why? Sleeping on what, where? Thinking and speaking? Maybe after you've given it all a lot of thought - but how do you know?Walking, sleeping, thinking, speaking. — Garrett Travers
Really? To go where you want, say what you want, do what you want? Without hindrance or restraint? Where is this magic land? And of course you've already accounted for your lack of freedom in being bound by your wants, yes?Again freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. — Garrett Travers
It may imply it, but it doesn't mean it. I'd go so far as to say that wrt other's boundaries, we're all subject to a good deal of hindrance and restraint - wouldn't you?respecting each other's sovereign boundaries implies voluntary interaction. — Garrett Travers
Walking on what, where, why? Sleeping on what, where? Thinking and speaking? Maybe after you've given it all a lot of thought - but how do you know? — tim wood
Really? To go where you want, say what you want, do what you want? Without hindrance or restraint? Where is this magic land? And of course you've already accounted for your lack of freedom in being bound by your wants, yes? — tim wood
It may imply it, but it doesn't mean it. I'd go so far as to say that wrt other's boundaries, we're all subject to a good deal of hindrance and restraint - wouldn't you? — tim wood
We're considering two - at least two - different ideas of freedom. Yours, if you're a slave to ice cream, at least, presumably, you're free to choose vanilla or chocolate. And just this a pseudo-freedom built on a foundation of a kind of slavery or at least subservience. But you're not free until you can acknowledge your craving for ice cream and let it go; i.e., be free of it.That would be America, as the last best hope of this. I can go where I want, say and do what I want, when it doesn't violate the rights of others to also do so. — Garrett Travers
We're considering two - at least two - different ideas of freedom. Yours, if you're a slave to ice cream, at least, presumably, you're free to choose vanilla or chocolate. And just this a pseudo-freedom built on a foundation of a kind of slavery or at least subservience. But you're not free until you can acknowledge your craving for ice cream and let it go; i.e., be free of it. — tim wood
As to American freedom, maybe in the antebellum West as a mountain man, but those constrained in their own way at least as much as modern man. Pure nature not allowing much in the way of freedom. And in America today it is difficult to think of anywhere you can be both free and not potentially be violating the rights of others. Except perhaps in thinking, but that also subject to hindrances and restraints, and them often enough not even recognized as such. — tim wood
If you want to argue the occasional practical freedom of vanilla v. chocolate, no argument here. But instead I argue that's just no freedom at all. — tim wood
It's not clear to me that my freedom to act necessarily constitutes an exercise of sovereignty over anyone — Ciceronianus
She may be distinguishing that view from the more modern view she feels has developed. — Ciceronianus
It seems to me, however, that sovereignty is for her a bete noir and she juxtaposes it with freedom to persuade others to think of it as such as well. — Ciceronianus
It constitutes an act of sovereignty over one's own self and the exercise of the sole right to the action therein contained. Human action is sovereignty, and it requires force to impede, or compel. — Garrett Travers
and yet,So, no, — Garrett Travers
I'm not sure with what you are disagreeing.interpersonal freedom requires the recognition of sovererign boundaries between people. — Garrett Travers
Ah. Don't let me detain you.I have homework to do tonight, — Garrett Travers
in this fashion makes individual sovereignty appear equivalent to the imposition of authority over others, and as objectionable. — Ciceronianus
I would say that is probably influenced by a dualistic approach at seeing oneself and one's own actions. — Garrett Travers
I offer ↪Metaphysician Undercover's disagreeing with her, and you, as further evidence that she is right. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.