Liberty of Indifference and Liberty of Spontaneity

[Anonymous No.15193625]

What the fuck do these two mean and how do they oppose each other? Can anyone give actual examples instead of vague descriptions that back literally nothing up?
>Few are capable of distinguishing betwixt the liberty of spontaneity, as it is call'd in the schools, and the liberty of indifference; betwixt that which is oppos'd to violence, and that which means a negation of necessity and causes. The first is even the most common sense of the word; and as ‘tis only that species of liberty, which it concerns us to preserve, our thoughts have been principally turn'd towards it, and have almost universally confounded it with the other.
This means absolutely nothing, individual pieces above may be words, but they do not create a meaningful sentence.

[Anonymous No.15193639]

> hes only now starting to realize that most philosophers are literal retards

[Anonymous No.15193671]

>>15193625
>as it is call'd in the schools
>the most common sense of the word;
He is explicitly referring to how those words are used in "the schools" and in the common language of his time. So maybe you should find out what those usages were before posting, retard.

[Anonymous No.15194366]

>>15193671
Yeah well I can't find it anywhere and no modern source provides anything deeper than that. "We must learn to differentiate between the two, the original statement is copied and the reader can go fuck himself or pretend he understood it."

[Anonymous No.15194439]

"I can likewise conceive an individual object that really exists, such as St. Paul's Church in London. I have an idea of it; I conceive it. The immediate object of this conception is 400 miles distant; and I have no reason to think it acts upon me or that I act on it."

[Anonymous No.15195078]

>>15193625
sounds like he's talking about freedom from force by other humans, vs the impossible freedom from the hard facts of the world.

[Anonymous No.15196420]

Bump.