So one can't wish for something without deciding and moving to obtain it? I desire chips, but I've not the will to get up and go to the shop. — Banno
The problem obviously, is that the author of the article has not provided a cogent definition of "will". It is this faulty description of "will" which produces the appearance of your "strange little paradox". In reality there is no such paradox, just the proposal of an unacceptable definition of "will". — Metaphysician Undercover
The quote is from Hana Arendt's essay on Freedom. I came across it in an article from the Ethics Institute, Freedom and disagreement: How we move forward. The article makes the obvious point that
When debates are being waged over freedom, we must begin with the acknowledgement that we (as individuals) are only ever as free as the broader communities in which we operate. Our own freedoms are contingent upon the political systems that we exist in, actively engage with, and mutually construct.
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.
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
The paradox here is that freedom as sovereignty immediately distorts the notion of freedom. Only the soveriegnty is truly free, but that means my freedom is dependent upon the unfreedom of others. It has become antithetical to the communal, reciprocal life of a community. — Tobias
Only if we establish relationships towards others that are free, might we be free. That requires relinquishing sovereignty. — Tobias
For those of you who get all horny about free will, it is not unlike Strawson's concept of it, who is firmly rooted in the analytic tradition. However also for him free will resides in a relation to the other, not in some sort of mastery over oneself. I am not going to dwell further on it, because it detracts from the topic of freedom in a broader sense. — Tobias
How is this so? Freedom is dependent only on the non-advance of univited interaction between peoples. Meaning, respected sovereignty between people is tantamount to freedom for all those participating in the respect of boundaries. Where does the unfreedom of others come in? I suspect you're going to introduce one of a number of different perceptions of freedom to explain this, that have nothing to do with the working definitions of the word that I have published here in this thread. But, in the importance of being fair to you, I shall give you the benefit you need to properly answer that question, if you so choose to freely. — Garrett Travers
"Free" will, doesn't exist. 99% of our cognition is subconscious. — Garrett Travers
But, we do have executive function that works in tandem with cingulate cortex, amygdala, basal ganglia, and the hippocumpus to form the emotion processing network. — Garrett Travers
It is clear to me that she thinks freedom is not to be identified with sovereignty... Do we at the least agree here? That Arendt, for better or worse, thinks freedom is to do with choice and novelty within the re publica? As opposed to the capacity to achieve what one wills without regard for the public space?
The discussion of "inner freedom" at about p146-7 seemed to be an oblique reference to stoicism. The implication is that Stoic ideals such as control of one's passions or acting in accord with nature morphed under the influence of Augustin and Paul into something closer to modern ideas of freedom as acting in accord with one's will. I take the change to which she refers to be between a more ancient notion of the freedom to choose within a polity to a supposed freedom to chose despite a polity. — Banno
Ciceronianus might be happy to note the essay can also be read as criticism of Heidegger, who still holds on very much to an idea of freedom and authenticity in conversation with oneself. Arendt invokes the political. — Tobias
The question is where freedom fits in relation tot his Stoic enterprise of overcoming unreasonable or unnatural desire. I don't know enough of the topic to be sure, but at first blush freedom does not look to be of great significance to the Stoics. — Banno
I rejoice in any criticism of Heidegger, but frankly wish he had spent far more time "in conversation with himself" than he did. — Ciceronianus
I do not care what you have published in the thread Garrett, I was reading Arendt. You are already working with some kind of definition of freedom. Apparently the non-invited interaction between peoples. God knows why, but you might have a reason for it. — Tobias
I'm under the impression that she speaks of "individual freedom" or "inner freedom" as if it's a kind of "sovereignty" over oneself, which it would seem is consistent with what appears, to me, to be a tendency on her part to believe in a kind of inner dialogue or conflict between one me and another me, one me being the will, one being desire, another me being acting-me, yet another being acted-upon-me; I don't know, it gets confusing (not enough mees in me to comprehend this, perhaps). But I may be wrong. — Ciceronianus
I don't think the Stoics were all that concerned about freedom of any kind, except perhaps to the extent that it was necessary to act in accordance with nature. Virtue was the good for the Stoics. One could be virtuous without being free to do whatever one likes. For them it was quite unnecessary, and even improper, to exercise sovereignty over anyone--for Epictetus I'd say in particular, as others are not within our control. — Ciceronianus
Epictetus was a slave and if one believes he said what Arrian says he said, it didn't matter to him that he wasn't free for much of his life. He thought it unimportant that Emperors and others could punish or kill him if he chose to act virtuously (so it seems did certain Roman Senators who were Stoics, who were executed by Emperors). — Ciceronianus
Stoics didn't associate themselves with any polity, believing with Diogenes the Dog that they were citizens of the world. — Ciceronianus
I'm under the impression that she speaks of "individual freedom" or "inner freedom" as if it's a kind of "sovereignty" over oneself, which it would seem is consistent with what appears, to me, to be a tendency on her part to believe in a kind of inner dialogue or conflict between one me and another me, one me being the will, one being desire, another me being acting-me, yet another being acted-upon-me; I don't know, it gets confusing (not enough mees in me to comprehend this, perhaps). But I may be wrong. I find it difficult to follow her thought, distracted as I am by the names she so relentlessly drops throughout the article. — Ciceronianus
despite his unwelcome affiliation with some of the most heinous villains in history. — Tobias
Yes, I do, in fact. It's called the working definition: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint/absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government/the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved — Garrett Travers
To say, "I don't care," doesn't make sense within the context of this specific conversation. We are having a discussion ABOUT that. — Garrett Travers
That kind of does the trick. It's a bit like reading Lenin; sure, it's interesting, but was it woth the bodies? Many more interesting philosophers than both. — Garrett Travers
There is no such thing as 'the working definition'. Philosophy is not an excercise in dictionary writing. There might be working definitions of philosopher x or y, or in the context of Kantianianism, utilitarianism and so on. Arendt opens the discussion on what freedom is, then telling her, here I have 'the working defintion, does not make any sense. — Tobias
No, we are having a conversation about Arendt's essay. You have a most irritating tendency to want to set the terms. However, why would I be playing along? — Tobias
I see it as totally unrelated. What they argued about philosophy is for me removed from their politics. A good argument is a good argument irrespective of the political views of the one who brings it forth. It may be a warning and invites thorough investigation of the work in question to see if any ideas within it prefigured mass murder. If anything it is a reason to read both very carefully, something I doubt you both have done. — Tobias
And no, I am not taking your word for it that there are more interesting philosophers. Why would I? — Tobias
"well, Garrett, what fallacy could you be talking about, given you're so pompous as to assert such a thing about a respected philosopher?" — Garrett Travers
And the topic of that essay, and by extension the topic of this discussion - as described by the title of this discussion - is on the nature of freedom, sovereignty, and by ambiguous extention, purposely asserted in the essay, will and it's associated degrees of freedom. I changed no terms, I merely have upheld them. — Garrett Travers
Never said to take my word for, but now that you bring it up, trust me, take my word for it, you'll thank me, there are far more interesting and less destructive people who have graced the field of philosophy; a lot more interesting, too. — Garrett Travers
There is no working definition of freedom accepted by all in philosophy. Moreover the word freedom is bandied about by all and everyone in different ways. We see a likeness in the usage, but not at all a common usage accepted by all as in the word table for instance or doorknob. — Tobias
Can someone tell Garrett Travers that just because he states there is some sort of definition that does not make it the case? Philosophy does not do dictionary, or maybe it is just your objectivist leanings, but no, not in any tradition worth its salt is a concept such as freedom off limits because there is some sort of definition of it. — Tobias
No I I would not ask such a question because it is of no interest to me in the least. I am actually not asking you any questions, nor am I engaging with any of the points you made in the thread accept those directed at me, because I am not seeing anything in there that are remotely worth my time. — Tobias
The way you do philosophy, actually the way you not do philosophy, gives me no incentive to trust you on just about anything remotely related to the subject. — Tobias
The first page or so brings out a strange little paradox for those who insist they have free will: Are you free to act against your own will?
Hence the "Oppression of the will". — Banno
The idea that a word's usage must be accepted by all, is a standard you are simply fabricating for no other reason than you do not want to contend with the clear rebuttal that I presented against the argument of this psuedo-philosopher. — Garrett Travers
And I don't know what Objectivist leanings means. What about might Stoic leanings? Or, my Virtue Ethics leanings? Or, my Utilitarian leanings? Would any of those dictate whether or not I could read a definition clearly defined and clearly expounded upon within the philosophical tradition over the course of thousands of years? Seems a strange thing to toss into a question about reading comprehension. — Garrett Travers
By not seeing arguments that are "not worth my time," you mean to say, "you have clearly refuted the original claims of the essay in question, using both modern cognitive neuroscience, logicical argumentation, and clear definitions of a word that has long had the same basic understanding informing its description, thus I would rather not engage with you and instead insult you, even though you've done no such thing to me." — Garrett Travers
Yes, by clearly defining terms, because to not do so would be a fallacy of ambiguity - that's something you learn in introductory logic, supporting those definitions with a description of how the brain operates as per cited academic journals provided by frontiers in science, and actually addressing every single critique of my assessment sent in my direction..... How do you do philosophy? And tell me, when you describe said methodology, will you please do me the favor of just showing me how you do it, while leaving the insults to yourself; it's kind of not a philosophical approach to discussions, it's actually a fallacy, which makes it unphilosophical. — Garrett Travers
She enters into a genealogical exploration of a philosophical concept and finds different meanings. What is wrong with that? — Tobias
Kant formulated the positive conception of freedom as the free capacity for choice. It asserts the unconditional value of the freedom to set one’s own ends. Autonomy of the will is the supreme principle of morality and a necessary condition of moral agency." — Tobias
So a philosophy of right is necessarily a philosophy of freedom that seeks to comprehend freedom actualized in how we relate to each other and construct social and political institutions." — Tobias
In Heidegger's late thinking, human freedom is determined not any more by the obligation of choosing oneself but by the necessity of clearing the truth of Being." — Tobias
No, apply your own definition: not worth my time, means not worth my time. — Tobias
No, philosophy is not 'clrearly defining terms'. I had a class on introductory logic, all well and good, though by no means the only approach to philosophy. Not even the dominant approach anymore it seems. How the brain operates has never been a philosophical topic, but one for neuro-science. I take my bearings in philosophical methodology from Michel Foucault, who stands in a Heideggerian tradition. — Tobias
Freedom is individual human action, as is demanded by your nature, independent of interpersonal coercion. — Garrett Travers
Foucault's not a philosopher, dude. He was nihilistic child predator who hated the world and everyone in it, especially the people he could confuse to the point neurotic derangement. And Heidegger was fucking Nazi. The idea that you would even remotely have an urge to critique my philosophical approach, without providing even a single argument against my position, when your ideological leaders are the most immoral, disgusting specimens among men imaginable, is next level self-myopia. And yes, it actually is the case the clearly defined terms are a elemental in philosophizing. Foucault has abused you, as well, it seems. — Garrett Travers
Freedom is individual human action, as is demanded by your nature, independent of interpersonal coercion. — Garrett Travers
the free capacity for choice. It asserts the unconditional value of the freedom to set one’s own ends. Autonomy of the will is the supreme principle of morality and a necessary condition of moral agency." — Tobias
You have not presented anything worth my time, really. I think you just do not like to hear that. Please go on doing things your way, but do not compel me to read it as I find philosophy by dictionary simply boring. — Tobias
Perhaps you forget I am under no obligation to engage with you at all. In the above statement your true colors show. Whoever does not do philosophy your way is no philosopher. You are fond of fallacies right? Look up 'no true Scotsman'. While you are at it also read up on the argumentum ad hominem and please stop annoying me. — Tobias
If, as she states earlier, freedom is known only through tangible realities - such as our interactions with others - not through some sort of apparatus of self-reflection, then how can those who live under the thumb of totalitarianism, in which all spheres of life are dominated by the political, be thought to be free at all? — ToothyMaw
Moreover, I find myself wondering if the recognition of privacy and freedom from politics is more desirable than the legislated freedom (such as the second amendment), if the two are not compatible. — ToothyMaw
I can hardly understand anything that's being said without reading it like five times. — ToothyMaw
A definition that describes it would be a definition that determines it(s nature), would it not? — Janus
I welcome any contribution to engage with the content of Arendt's essay. I find it worthwhile and interesting. Unfortunately it has been completely buried under all kind of mud slinging. I apologize for my part in it. — Tobias
:rofl: I do know he is a national socialist and that is, of course, uncomely. However, I do wonder why you always react so strongly to him. He is also a very interesting thinker. He really is, despite his unwelcome affiliation with some of the most heinous villains in history. — Tobias
Apology accepted. Now can we address my arguments — Garrett Travers
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.