Two apt quotes I came across this morning:

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

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

we might think some circumstances we find in something approaching a "state of nature," for mankind are not good: widespread food insecurity, constant band level warfare, thralldom and slavery for the vanquished, male relatives exerting undue control over their female relatives' romantic relationships, infanticide etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We do think it, and we are ruled by that thinking. But what of freedom?

My suggestion is that freedom is the starting place, and we immediately make rules about it.

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

We do think it, and we are ruled by that thinking. But what of freedom?

How are we free unless our actions are ruled by our thoughts, unless we act for a reason? Surely, completely arbitrary action isn't freedom, right? I am not ruled by my thoughts when I have a muscle spasm or when I unconsciously scratch an itch, but these don't seem like freer actions because of this.

Likewise, an alcoholic isn't more free when they feel a twinge of anxiety and unthinkingly pour themselves some scotch versus when they decide to throw out all their liquor one night after reflecting on the negative effects of their drinking.

My suggestion is that freedom is the starting place, and we immediately make rules about it.

I agree, but the "rules" are, counterintuitively, necessary to becoming free. Freedom, pure freedom if you will, is the starting place, but it's a starting place that collapses into contradiction.

Imagine a blank plane, endless white in all directions. Now draw a shape. Whatever you choose, your choice will constrain you. Drawing a triangle means your shape couldn't have been a square, etc. You can't have drawn "just points A, B, C" and still have also have drawn points Y or Z.

To be absolutely free, you must never have to choose between anything. But this means our choices are never effective, and we are in the exact same place no matter what we chose. If we are absolutely free, our choices become irrelevant to us, choosing anything and having no choice become identical, a contradiction.

The five types of freedom I mentioned also each contradict one another. Self-control is itself a form of constraint. Social freedom helps construct authenticity, because people often get their sense of identify from the social institutions they belong to. However, when institutions work to shift individuals’ preferences such that they harmonize, this at times requires a coercion that runs contrary to authenticity.

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.

The fact that each mode of freedom contradicts prior modes is what leads to the necessary emergence the other, higher levels. These harmonize the existing contradictions, while introducing new ones. We could map these out via Hegel’s dialectical, but I’ll spare you of that! (Note: my philosophy is not entirely Hegel’s and he had no explicit typology of freedom, I think some of his core intuitions here are correct).

How are we free unless our actions are ruled by our thoughts, unless we act for a reason? Surely, completely arbitrary action isn't freedom, right? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you think that anything that is not thought is arbitrary? I would say rather that thought is mechanical, and not free at all. You see I suggested that desire controlled us and you replaced it with fear. and now it is thought. It seems to me that freedom is what you want rid of, what you want to control and fix. But freedom isn't like that; from freedom comes the new, whereas desire and fear and thought are always about the past. Freedom is the unknown, and the unthought. It is creativity.

The idea of self-tyranny or slavery to one’s thoughts and desires is an odd one because one cannot be a slave to himself, both master and slave at the same time.

Do you think that anything that is not thought is arbitrary? I would say rather that thought is mechanical, and not free at all

No. An act not being entirely arbitrary is a precondition of its being freely chosen. However, this does not entail that anything that is not arbitrary is free or that only thought is not arbitrary.

Freedom is when we do what we want to do. When our actions sync up with our desires. It is a state.

Modifying Lynn Rudder Baker's definition, an act is free when:

We want to do x and we actually do x.
We want to want to do x.
We do x because we want to do it (it is not a coincidence, our wanting is causally involved in the process)
We would still want to do x even if we understood the full provenance of why we want to will x (i.e., there is not some fact we might discover that would make us no longer want to do x)

These conditions, particularly the last, are difficult to meet entirely. This is no issue, an act can be more or less free; freedom is not bivalent.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanical." Thought is mechanical to the degree that nature as a whole is "mechanical." But mechanism as a metaphysical model also has fallen out of favor because our concept of the mechanical has only a crude overlap with the way the law-like aspects of nature manifest themselves. In any event, the ways in which nature is mechanical do not seem to prohibit some level of intentionality, since we exist.

If thought was causally sui generis, unconnected to the world, then it would seem to preclude our being free. First, because our intent could never be causally efficacious, since it doesn't interact with the rest of the causal world, and second because we could never learn anything about the world, and thus know how to enact our desires. Thought has to connected to cause for there to be freedom, but also to avoid other philosophical problems such as solipsism.

You see I suggested that desire controlled us and you replaced it with fear. and now it is thought. It seems to me that freedom is what you want rid of, what you want to control and fix.

I don't know what you mean here; where did I suggest that fear controls us?

And I'm not totally sure what you mean by "thought" here. Do you mean, "mental life?" Obviously, mental life involves a great deal our actions, but not all of them. We're often not aware of our own heartbeat and we're not free to start and stop it at will like we are with our breath (granted we can do so via other means). We fall asleep without intending to, etc., and so it's clear that thought, in this sense, doesn't dictate all our behavior, and so "control" us at all times.

But I don't see how we can be free in actions that don't enter subjective experience in the slightest.

Anyhow, the type of pre-thought freedom you seem to be invoking seems to be "the flight from all definiteness," no? As soon as we will anything we have constrained ourselves with thought. My point above is that this sort of freedom, aside from having no relevance to practical life, also collapses into a contradiction. Any act constrains. To act means you have given up not acting. To do A and not B entails not doing B and not A. So the only way to be absolutely free is to never act. But then, you are not free to act without becoming unfree, a contradiction.

How are we free unless our actions are ruled by our thoughts, unless we act for a reason? Surely, completely arbitrary action isn't freedom, right? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It might be freedom, but where would completely arbitrary action come from? We - I include all sentient beings - don't act without motivation and there is always a cause and purpose to our actions.

I am not ruled by my thoughts when I have a muscle spasm or when I unconsciously scratch an itch, but these don't seem like freer actions because of this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Maybe you don't need to think about these things, but if you were in restraints and not free to ease a spasm or scratch an itch, you would certainly think about them.

Likewise, an alcoholic isn't more free when they feel a twinge of anxiety and unthinkingly pour themselves some scotch versus when they decide to throw out all their liquor one night after reflecting on the negative effects of their drinking. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Addiction is a whole kettle of fish by itself. If traced to its origins, it may well have been caused by external constraints and imposed limitations, or an unsuccessful struggle against internalized constraints (such as religious or ideological dogma or negative self-image). Substance dependency is formed, most often, through self-medication for a real or perceived disability. Overcoming addiction is a process of self-empowerment, that begins with the realization that one is captive to the substance and a desire to be free of it.
___

But we might think some circumstances we find in something approaching a "state of nature," for mankind are not good: widespread food insecurity, constant band level warfare, thralldom and slavery for the vanquished, male relatives exerting undue control over their female relatives' romantic relationships, infanticide etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think that's an entirely accurate description of all humans living in nature for 100,000 or so years. There was a great variety in social organizations, cultures and mores, as well as physical circumstances. In fact, more variety than there has been in historical civilizations.

The idea of self-tyranny or slavery to one’s thoughts and desires is an odd one because one cannot be a slave to himself, both master and slave at the same time. — NOS4A2

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.

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

Freedom is when we do what we want to do. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, you said that, and then you said it is when we avoid doing what we don't want to do, and then t
you said it is when we do what we think to do.

I disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanical." Thought is mechanical to the degree that nature as a whole is "mechanical." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why do you think that? I say thought is mechanical because it is binary (true or false) operates with opposites and the nearest it can come to freedom is 'choice'. But choice is just an unresolved conflict. whereas freedom is beyond thought, it is the new.

The idea of self-tyranny or slavery to one’s thoughts and desires is an odd one because one cannot be a slave to himself, both master and slave at the same time. — NOS4A2

It is an odd idea. But the ideas of slave and master are already very odd. But one experiences things, and then finds ways to talk about them. Men put other men in chains and beat them if they do not obey. One learns to obey, because one cannot escape.

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...

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...?

Thanks! 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. :wink:

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!

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.

1. Emotion (lower) was viewed as the opposite of 2. Reason (higher). — Amity

You know that's largely hypocrisy. At the same time the 'rational' man disparages the emotionalism of women, he extols the flaming passion of a lover, the patriotic zeal of a soldier, and the consuming rage of a proud man wronged. At the same time he dismisses feminine intuition, he follows his own 'gut feeling'. And the dishonesty goes far beyond that: he also takes his wife's best ideas and sells them as his own. The whole 'women are intellectually feeble and emotionally unstable' bulltwaddle has only one purpose: to retain control (if possible, outright ownership) of the resources women provide for men's undertakings. The 'philosophy' is a flimsy cover for brute force.

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. No other animal has a concept of freedom, simply because no other animal has ever been unfree, until humans trapped, domesticated and subjugated them. Once a finch is inside a cage, he thinks of nothing but flying free. Even budgies, bred generation upon generation in affectionate captivity, escape if they can. We have the moral freedom to do what is right in human terms, but no dog is allowed to do what would be right in a canine pack, no cow is allowed to kick the farmer who killed her child so he can take her milk.

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

Also based on a lack of knowledge or false beliefs about female physiology, behaviour, and roles. — Amity

I'm not buying that excuse. Most of the men who made up the philosophy and the rules were married. Besides, how come the highly educated gentlemen of Europe knew less than the savage redskins of America? How come the same men who fought for Maud and venerated Elizabeth refused to let their daughters into university? The rationale has always been rickety, at best.

The particular culture and societal norms; the need of/for males to show they were not emotional. — Amity

Except at football games and taverns. You can have the same feelings, as long as you call it by a different name. The righteous indignation of one is the shrewish scolding of the other - and there is a head-cage to remedy the latter.

Awareness of ourselves and a sense of freedom. Isn't that a natural state of affairs? — Amity

The sense of freedom is articulated and celebrated only by humans, because only humans knowingly inflict and accept bondage. Free animals cannot imagine any other state; they live in fear of being hunted and killed. Free humans live in constant fear of losing their freedom to other humans, and constant hope of gaining more freedom.
All human freedom is conditional and provisional. Free to do or be or say something; free from something; free of something, free within some predetermined limit or free as long as a contract is honoured. For other species in a state of nature, freedom is limited by their capabilities, their environment and their fortune: it doesn't require examination or explanation.

I am always troubled when someone cites a 'moral' aspect to freedom; its purpose; what we should do, what we must do. Surely, those imperatives don't refer to what we individually experience as a sense of freedom?

It might be freedom, but where would completely arbitrary action come from? We - I include all sentient beings - don't act without motivation and there is always a cause and purpose to our actions.

Excellent point. , this is what I refer to when I talk of the involvement of "thought" in freedom. Of course, thought its self has causes, and so this is only a proximate explanation for our actions.

Now I understand that you, (Unenlightened), take freedom to be something more abstract, something that must come before or above thought. I don't disagree with you there (see my thoughts above on "pure freedom").

However, from an empirical standpoint, it's also hard to see any evidence that such acausal freedom exists, nor how it could exist. And yet some of our actions appear to me to be "more or less free." It seems to me that most people generally understand coercion versus empowerment in terms of their own lived experience, culpability versus accidents in terms of moral behavior, and experience volition as a sensation.

Hence, the typology of freedom I began with, which you may or may not find useful, is an attempt to elucidate what we mean by "freedom" in these imperfect contexts. It is to help explain the senses in which we use the term "freedom" vis-a-vis our world. I personally, like to think of these different "modes" of freedom in terms of dialectical "refinement" through sublation, but I think you could also think of them in strictly pragmatic terms, as how we operationalize the imperfect freedom we see in the world. We might also consider the different meanings of "freedom," or "free action" in the context of metaphysics versus, say philosophy of law and justice, political philosophy, or the philosophy of history.

Maybe you don't need to think about these things, but if you were in restraints and not free to ease a spasm or scratch an itch, you would certainly think about them.

Indeed, a good example of how there is cause prior to conscious thought. What you bring up is interesting because here it is our very limits that serve to bring a facet of reality to our attention, which is counter-intuitive, but I would say it is so in a deep way.

Addiction is a whole kettle of fish by itself. If traced to its origins, it may well have been caused by external constraints and imposed limitations, or an unsuccessful struggle against internalized constraints (such as religious or ideological dogma or negative self-image).

:up: Your words remind me also of the concepts of internalized sexism and internalized racism as well. I'd argue that society is indeed necessary for all freedom, at the limit the infant dies if abandoned, but at the same time society is also corrosive on freedom in these ways. I think this sort of internalized limit on freedom also ties into the concept of authenticity that many authors have developed.

I don't think that's an entirely accurate description of all humans living in nature for 100,000 or so years. There was a great variety in social organizations, cultures and mores, as well as physical circumstances. In fact, more variety than there has been in historical civilizations.

Right, I should be more careful in phrasing that point. There is a great deal of disagreement as to levels of violence in human society and the likely impact of humanities' major periods of biological "self-domestication," prior to the emergence of behaviorally modern humans.

Unfortunately, questions of early anthropology are very political, and one can read books describing the lost Eden of the "noble savage," published right along side documentaries on the "vicious state of nature," that man once lived in.

I don't want to get side tracked on that because it is an open question. How violent man was is sort of ancillary. Obviously, evil acts have always existed that people wished they could overcome. And whatever the reality of man's early societies, almost all hunter gatherers were conquered and displaced by expanding state level societies that could wage war more effectively. The role of technology in warfare is one of the places where knowledge intersects with freedom, since deterrence and self-defense sometimes play a role in safeguarding freedoms. We are where we are in terms of looking at how to perfect freedom at the social level, for better or worse.

---

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.

Exactly. How will we read if no one has taught us? What do we read if we have no access to books?

So, to answer your question about why I rank the freedoms as "higher and lower," it is because some serve as prerequisites for others, but moreover because some are more abstract than others.

Let's take the first part first. Pragmatically, one needs some level of negative freedom to have any other sort of freedom. If you are being choked, you can't engage in development, etc. Likewise, to be part of society requires some degree of self-control, as does authenticity.

Now consider abstraction. Negative freedom as "pure freedom," freedom from all constraints, I put first because it is completely abstract. Any definiteness constrains, limiting negative freedom. By contrast, reflexive freedom presupposes the existence of the self and the will. Authenticity presupposes this self-control, and considers if it is invoked in a way that is true to the self. Social freedom already presupposes the existence of a society, a collection of selves. Moral freedom, in the context of both the individual and institutions doing what they think is good, presupposes both the individual and society, as well as concrete actions in the world.

So, "higher versus lower" is not a moral or aesthetic ordering, but rather an ordering in terms of how the types of freedom emerge from considering "pure, abstract freedom." Of course, one could conceptualize the order differently perhaps, but I find this sort of dialectical unfolding to be useful in considering the ways in which contradiction defines the nuances in the concept of freedom.

Hopefully this explains the other parts you quoted. I haven't articulated myself the best clearly, but I don't think the ordering comes from "higher and lower" parts of the self, re Aristotle, because I think the self is a composite unity and we become freer, in many ways, but harmonizing aspects of the self, not setting them against one another.

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 didn't intend the list to be exhaustive. I think you may be reading things into this that aren't there; the word "study" being a poor choice on my part perhaps. For instance, I mean "psychology" in the broad sense, simply "the discourse of the soul," not in terms of the narrowly defined academic discipline. The point I was trying to make was merely this: "knowledge is power, including self-knowledge- self-knowledge both at the individual level and at the social level." When I wrote "great" works I had two different meanings in mind.

1. Those works that move us. These empower us because they bring us to understand ourselves or others better.
2. Those works that have shaped our society. These help us better understand the flow of history and why we have the problems we have.

Plays, books, shows, etc. can be great in both of these ways or just one or the other, and to varying degrees for different people. Obviously, the social context varies less between individuals. For example, I really do not like Ayn Rand's philosophy in many respects, but I suffered through Atlas Shrugged because it is a work that seems to have had a profound effect on the society I live in (many US politicians love it).

Knowledge is a duty because how shall we try to bring about states of affairs that we think are good if we don't know how to predict the consequences of our actions? That's all that is meant by duty.

Freedom is a duty because how can we do the good if we aren't free to do so? The idea is just that these seem to me to be broad prerequisites for moral action, even if we can never perfect either. I have certainly done things I no longer think were good because I lacked understanding, or because I was giving in to social pressure. That's the sort of thing I mean here.

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?

I will save this for another thread when I have time, but I think we have to look to ground morality in principles at work in nature. Deontological morality that is born of pure abstraction fails to connect to the world, while relativism seems to ignore objective ways in which "harm" can be defined about as well as anything in the life sciences.


The other questions would probably be better answered when I have more time.

Briefly, moral freedom is the "climax," because it is the most definite, least abstract, since it ties to individual acts. There is a sense in which we are unfree when we do what we think is bad, unjust, evil, etc. 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.



I guess my question is, do you think your definition of freedom collapses into contradiction. If not, why? In what ways does definiteness not result in constraint?

I say thought is mechanical because it is binary (true or false) operates with opposites

I don't agree with this. I lean towards dialatheism, the belief that one can have "true contradictions." Bivalance and the excluded middle are useful heuristics for simplifying logics. But we can also think through paraconsistent logics, and indeed most of the mystics I enjoy reading make their case through unfolding paradoxes. I would argue that thought operates with opposites because one idea, say "good" is incoherent without an opposite, the possibility of "ungood." But I see this as the emergence of higher levels of nuance from contradiction and harmonization, rather than a preexisting set of antipodes.

and the nearest it can come to freedom is 'choice'. But choice is just an unresolved conflict. whereas freedom is beyond thought, it is the new.

I agree, you phrase it well. Our difference might be partly in word choice. I continue to use the word "freedom" to describe more constrained modes of freedom that exist for us in our lived experience and in human history, e.g. "social freedom." But negative freedom, in its purest form, is the most basic conception of the idea, and thought does limit that sort of freedom.

The idea of self-tyranny or slavery to one’s thoughts and desires is an odd one because one cannot be a slave to himself, both master and slave at the same time. — NOS4A2

It only seems like a problem if you think of yourself as a perfect, indivisible mereological simple, as a single thing that has no parts. But if you are a complex entity, you can certainly have different parts that come into conflict. One part could be enslaved by another part. It's hard, for example, to imagine that someone with Tourette Syndrome is as free of irresistible impulses to blurt things out as someone without the condition.

I think it is useful to think of an addict as being in some sense the slave of their cravings. Perhaps it is possible for them to resist their particular drug, but certainly not as easy as it is for someone not an addict.

What is undesirable, it seems to me, is for a person to be a slave to their baser impulses, the lower gaining dominance over the higher.

Unfortunately, questions of early anthropology are very political, and one can read books describing the lost Eden of the "noble savage," published right along side documentaries on the "vicious state of nature," that man once lived in. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's why I prefer anthropologists with a comprehensive view. I also refer to native mythologies for a sense of how peoples thought, behaved and related to the world.

The role of technology in warfare is one of the places where knowledge intersects with freedom, since deterrence and self-defense sometimes play a role in safeguarding freedoms. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As well as in restricting and denying freedoms. There is always a contract in society. Sometimes that contract is grossly lopsided; sometimes it balances quite well over the whole interactive network of human activities and aspirations.

Nietzsche refers to the ego as a "congress of souls," early in Beyond Good and Evil. It's an apt metaphor. I've always found research on split-brained individuals quite interesting, the ways in which each hemisphere of the brain can seem to act as a separate mind when the connections between the two are severed. What is often missed though, and is as amazing to me, is how they harmonize when linked.

Personally, my intuition is that part of the mystery of conciousness stems from this back and forth, the way in which parts of the mind are other to some parts. In ways, the mind acts like a computer, but computation itself involves communications, semiosis.

But as I mentioned before, I don't like the "higher/lower" ordering, although I think it does have some pragmatic uses. I tend to think of it in terms of discord and disharmony. When my executive function wants one thing, my drives and desires another, I am divided. If we are like a congress or society, then we are most free when all desires become harmonized. I think this is partly where "authenticity," enters the picture re self-control.

Like, , this

well as in restricting and denying freedoms. There is always a contract in society. Sometimes that contract is grossly lopsided; sometimes it balances quite well over the whole interactive network of human activities and aspirations.

... can apply to the self in ways. Think about how the executive can tamp down on sexuality, when social pressures tell people they must express their sexuality in inauthentic ways. This is sort of an oppression of the self, as opposed to a harmonization. Discipline is part of harmonization, but tyranny is not.

A human being is one entity, and no person is divisible, certainly not into master and slave, lower and higher. We can spend eternity categorizing him into parts, but it will forever be a poor accounting of the brute reality.

It’s better to say that an addict has cravings rather than is a slave to them, in my opinion, because to do otherwise suggests that these impulses are not his own.

Discipline is part of harmonization, but tyranny is not. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed. And yet again, so can tyranny promote self-discipline. Who can retain his dignity when caned by an overzealous headmaster can also retain his integrity under an oppressive political regime. Unfortunately, for every survivor, a hundred others bend double or break. But it's that one supremely disciplined survivor who will lead the rebellion. Societies, even stable ones, are never static. There are a million transactions, significant and trivial, in every minute; a million microscopic shifts in power and liberty.

It’s better to say that an addict has cravings rather than is a slave to them, in my opinion, because to do otherwise suggests that these impulses are not his own. — NOS4A2

That is a metaphor, like the monkey on his back. This is how addiction and compulsion feels; this is how the addict or compulsive behaves. Of course they are his cravings, not he their man, and when he realizes this - not simply recognizes it as true, but actually realizes it, he begins to gain mastery over the craving. This is also a fairly effective approach to depression, obesity and chronic pain: own it, so that it cannot own you.

I guess my question is, do you think your definition of freedom collapses into contradiction. If not, why? In what ways does definiteness not result in constraint? — Count Timothy von Icarus

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. One cannot from that say what it will do.
There is necessarily restriction implied by the finitude of human beings; lambs gambol in an ecstasy of freedom, but they do not fly.

For humans, I think the limit of individual freedom is the limit of individual responsibility. they are, psychologically, two sides of one coin. To be totally free is to take total responsibility for the world. This is how i would account for morality, while keeping it personal. So it is not my business to tell you what is moral, that would be to usurp your freedom; but in drawing that line I am taking responsibility for you even while you are free to be irresponsible.

I am aware that this is not very clear, but I am at the limits of both my understanding and my ability to communicate. So I will have to leave it there, unsatisfactory though it is. I will go quiet and read along and see if anything gets any clearer.

I think you articulate it well. I would, however, push back on the idea that it cannot be our business to tell others what is moral. No man is an island onto themselves, and through our actions we implicitly show others what we think is appropriate. You see this in the ways norms shape behavior, or more explicitly in political settings. If we ever feel we should protest injustice, we explicitly express sentiments about other's actions by doing so.

Plus, people often ask us, implicitly or explicitly about our moral judgements. In the context of raising children, its inevitable that you have to explain why stealing things is wrong, etc.

But I agree that in this way we act as a constraint on others. However, we face the problem were silence is its own sort of action. If a child is never taught any moral reasoning, that itself seems like a constraint on their ability to achieve social freedom, just as forcing a child to read is both a constraint and an enhancement of their freedom in other ways.

At the limit, the constant is harsh. If someone thinks they are entitled to take others' property as they please, or to violate others' bodies for their pleasure, then it seems society has a moral obligation to stop this behavior, to attempt to force a lesson on thieves and rapists, and to do what it can to restore justice after it is violated. But to jail a rapist is inevitably to tell them something about how they should see the moral order.

You bring up a good, underappreciated concern though, which is that, when we only focus on behavior modification, we are stealing responsibility from the individual, treating them like a dog that must be trained.

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

Through Hegel, this dynamic is expressed as a doubling of consciousness, where the conditions forced upon the slave are replicated in their treatment to themselves and fellow slaves. This points to a crossroads where the possible, as established by the power of the master, has a second life in the individuals framed by those conditions. There are some, like Georg Lukács, who saw the public and the individual bounded in the same topos or means of each side reflecting the other. There are views like that presented in the Invisible Man where the alienating dynamic is front and center but the 'personal' is decidedly not a reflection of those imposed conditions. And then there are the starting points for Freud and Jung who formulated these elements into conditions undergone by individual psyches.

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. This is noted in one of Kierkegaard's notes:

In every concrete expression of freedom, all or a part of existence [Tiveroerelsen] collaborates. — Kierkegaard, Papers, V B 53:21, 1844, given as a reference in The Concept of Anxiety.

Kierkegaard argues that the personal is fundamentally different from other categories to the point where psychology, as the attempt to generally understand the human condition, must give way to the theological. But his view is sharply at odds with a Stoicism that carefully marks out the borders between the regions. He clearly expects to change what is possible in the world.

How do you make sense of a person resisting their impulses? I don't know about you, but I often find conflict and disagreement and tension in myself, different aspects of myself competing for dominance. Sometimes one part wins. Other times another part.

There have been times in my life when I was trying hard to get super-fit and lean to maximize my rock climbing performance. I had this distinct feeling that there was a part of myself that was almost like a dog begging for food, whining at me, and I had to forcefully and firmly say no to it. And that part would feel kind of wounded and neglected. It really felt like the two parts of myself were like an overly stern master or father and an appetite-driven dog or child or something. When I was resisting food and taking cold showers and running hard and working out with strong self-discipline, it was as though this executive part of me was dominant and I was identifying with and feeling myself to be this part primarily. At other times, when I was more lax and indulgent, it was like I was the dog, happily raiding the food bin, with the master nowhere to be seen.

It seems to me that if you believe that what you are is basically a brain/body in an environment, it isn't hard to see the brain as a multitude with different networks and tendencies and regions perhaps even having different goals. I tend to think that we are not nearly as unitary as people normally think. Our brain activation patterns are much different in different contexts and in different modes.

But some people might believe that a human being is fundamentally a soul inhabiting a brain/body, and by extension, a world, and being a soul, a human is thus fundamentally a singular, eternally distinct entity, a monad. I don't subscribe to this view, but even then, it seems to me that you could characterize your relation to your body or some aspect of it as one of master and slave. In that case, it would seem better for the soul to master the body rather than the reverse.

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.

Also, as mentions, split-brain patients provide an interesting situation to consider. In some cases, it seems that each hemisphere has its own distinct identity.

In my misspent youth, I experimented with a variety of psychoactive chemicals. Occasionally, I experienced bizarre situations where my mind fragmented into different parts in radical dissociative states and then came back together as the effects of the drug wore off. I remember once having a fearful thought about my safety as the effects kicked in, and I sort of inwardly asked this seemingly intelligent space around me what would happen to me if I were to die. As I fully transitioned to the new state, it was as if I was no longer the person who asked the question. I was now the one who had been asked. Even then, this space that I now found myself as became fragmented into several beings who were conferring, talking about the guy who took the drug and trying to decide if his question made any sense. It was like there were several separated perspectives. I/we/they interpreted the question in such a way that led me/us/them to ask, "Can he fall out of this?" The answer was this: "No, a window we have on the world simply closes." And from this strange space, there was an image in some part of it of a small opening through which could be seen, from the point of view of a human, a lower torso and legs, with feet up on the coffee table (this was the view from my eyes). There was a sense that if he were to die, this opening would simply close forever, and I/we would simply not see the world from that point of view any longer.

It was strange to observe what happened as the drug wore off. It was as if these separated parts reintegrated and I then remembered the experience from each of the several perspectives, as if I was them all along, and so as remembered, it felt like I was all of them at once. But I suspect that during the dissociation, there was no such integration. I imagine it might be like that if multiple humans were to somehow join and integrate their brains. They might merge into a single entity that would remember the lives prior from all of the perspectives. It such an entity were to remember a conversation that happened between all of the members, it would remember the conversation from multiple angles at once and integrate them. The only way to experience the memories would be with this integration and comparison present. It wouldn't remember the experiences as they were when they happened, as that would require being once again isolated as one of the individuals at a time. So it might seem to you, if you were this entity, that you were all of the members all along.

In observing my dream states and hypnagogic and hypnopompic states, I have sometimes witnessed the transition from "unconsciousness" to "consciousness" or the reverse as being like a gathering up and concentration of dissociated parts or smeared-out-mind or a relaxation or dropping of such a concentration or integration, like water spilling out of a cup into the ocean.

I suspect that even in waking states, we are not as integrated and consistently "ourselves" as we think.

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?

Kierkegaard argues that the personal is fundamentally different from other categories to the point where psychology, as the attempt to generally understand the human condition, must give way to the theological. But his view is sharply at odds with a Stoicism that carefully marks out the borders between the regions. He clearly expects to change what is possible in the world. — Paine

Thanks for that. I think I need to read some Kierkegaard. No one seems to argue with him - perhaps it's the intimidating Big Guy standing at his shoulder. It seems obvious that people are not in general single-minded, and so there is a sense in which that freedom one seeks is the freedom from mental conflict (as illustrated by @petrichor above).

"... expects to change what is possible in the world." This! Evolution does it very slowly and laboriously The disciplined imagination of the architect or the engineer does it in almost no time. If there is a technical meaning to freedom, it must I think be that the future is underdetermined by the past. There is wriggle room. And the wriggle room seems to grow, as life complexifies - like a final frontier.