What do you hear when people say freedom?

[henry quirk]

'What do you hear when people say 'freedom'?'

a fiction

really: what are any of us 'free' of?

each of us is bound up in, and by, 'the world' (both within and without)

none of us are 'free', so: 'freedom' is a nice fiction, a convenient, and sometimes useful, fiction, but still a fiction

what we each have is far more powerful and real than 'freedom' or 'free will': we have agency, or, the capacity to choose

not an unlimited capacity to choose, but -- at all times, in all circumstances -- a capacity, a possibility, nonetheless

and synonymous with agency is self-possession, that is: the willful claiming of one's self and the defense of that claim

i claim my 'self' as my first, best, property and do as i like within the broad boundaries of 'the world'

your job -- if you want it -- is to defend yourself against my possible predation on you (just as i must defend myself against predation by you)


up-thread, Shawnee123 wrote, 'Pedophiles are always doing that, thinking they are free to rape children'

i counter: they are not 'free' to rape children, but they -- the pedophiles -- are doing just that...not because it's their 'right' but simply because 'they can'

if for example, my nephew (who is very important to me) were molested, i'd want the molester's liver (as an act of revenge, which is real; not an act of justice, which is fiction)...if i successfully hunt down the person and claim my revenge, then he loses...but: if the molester can safely evade me or my proxies (the police, a hit man, etc.) then he wins

all the moralizing in the world won't change this fact, nor will all the talk of 'freedom' (or limits on 'freedom'), or 'justice' (a fiction resting on the fiction of 'law' which is a fiction resting on the fiction of 'morality' which is nothing more than the median of successful behaviors exhibited by large numbers of folks across expanses of time)

seems to me: you defend against the predator simply because you value yourself (a subjective, idiosyncratic, perception), not because of a 'moral', or 'law'

certainly: climbing atop a soapbox (on a street corner, or, in the statehouse) and droning on about the sanctity of your 'freedom' nets a body nothing... --henry quirk

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

really: what are any of us 'free' of?

Not free of, free to. You call it agency but it's the same thing.
Freedom, is free to... take away freedom and you are no longer free to do what you wish, as least not without dire consequences.

[henry quirk]

'Not free of, free to'

i don't see the distinction

to be 'free to' means one is 'free of <restraint>'

also: 'freedom', 'free', is not the same as agency

again: to 'be free', to have 'freedom', means -- to me, at least -- one is unrestrained

and we each are restrained: by our own flesh (the way reality works) at the least; by the esoterica of the culture (all the fictions foisted up on us) at the most

agency, on the other hand, is simply a placeholder for the very real exercise of choice, that is: choosing and doing

again: our choices and the actions extending from those choices are not unlimited...in fact: very often, our options are severely limited in both choice and action, and still we can -- must -- choose

'freedom' and 'free will' are, i think, the sphere of god (if it exists) while agency is for us, IS us


'take away freedom and you are no longer free to do what you wish'

indeed!

but as 'agent' (agency) even if shackled (made un-free) one can still choose and act...not always as one likes or wants, but, even the shackled man led to the gallows has the capacity to choose

such a man may only have the choice of whether to walk with a measure of dignity to death (and therefore 'own' the death), or, dissolve into a puking puddle begging for mercy (becoming a slave of the death), but he still has the capacity, the possibility, of choice

'freedom', again, is a nice idea, a useful fiction, but it's a fiction nonetheless

agency, which is the agent, which is the self-possessed individual, is real, demonstrable, and intuitively 'correct'

[Kaliayev]

Usually I hear bleating mouths of politicians and shrill propagandists, lying through their teeth, when I hear the word "freedom".

I had some good notes on a pretty interesting understanding of freedom I read recently...I'll see if I can remember where they were and dig them out. Suffice to say, it was more interesting, and internally coherent, than most people's use of the word, not that this is especially hard when one considers the above and how often they spend talking about freedom, usually in the context of defending it by locking it up in an underground bunker, with an armed guard.

For its own safety, naturally.

[Queen of the Ryche]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

'What do you hear when people say 'freedom'?'

a fiction

really: what are any of us 'free' of?

each of us is bound up in, and by, 'the world' (both within and without)

none of us are 'free', so: 'freedom' is a nice fiction, a convenient, and sometimes useful, fiction, but still a fiction

what we each have is far more powerful and real than 'freedom' or 'free will': we have agency, or, the capacity to choose

not an unlimited capacity to choose, but -- at all times, in all circumstances -- a capacity, a possibility, nonetheless

and synonymous with agency is self-possession, that is: the willful claiming of one's self and the defense of that claim

i claim my 'self' as my first, best, property and do as i like within the broad boundaries of 'the world'

your job -- if you want it -- is to defend yourself against my possible predation on you (just as i must defend myself against predation by you)


seems to me: you defend against the predator simply because you value yourself (a subjective, idiosyncratic, perception), not because of a 'moral', or 'law'

certainly: climbing atop a soapbox (on a street corner, or, in the statehouse) and droning on about the sanctity of your 'freedom' nets a body nothing... --henry quirk

So am I incorrect in stating that your opinion is that freedom does not exist, and we have no reason to care for others, other than what we can take from them?

[henry quirk]

so: based on one post -- ignoring all my others which expand and clarify -- you judge me and my positions

nice...typical

hell: even in the one post you do cite there are things which refute this, 'see us all as ants or drones with no free will and no value'

dense