[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 128 KB, 500x375, fredom..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692922 No.1692922 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/. From a philosophical, economic and political standpoint, what is freedom? Why is it important or not? And the important one, can everyone have freedom? As a student I want to write an essay about it. But freedom seems like a utopia that you cant reach. If everyone is free, you can do what ever you want. But then others will use their freedom to oppress others, and steal away others freedom, making them un-free.
What is freedom to you, and how can we assure that everyone is free?

>> No.1692928
File: 37 KB, 282x475, 74642.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692928

>If everyone is free, you can do what ever you want. But then others will use their freedom to oppress others, and steal away others freedom, making them un-free.

http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/marx_very_short_introduction-1289506965.html

>> No.1692935

>>1692928
Yeah, Liberalism is the fox's freedom in a poultry yard.
As Marx said (or something very similar).

>> No.1693061

Freedom is asking other people to tell you what to think.

do yr own hmwrk, fgt

>> No.1693068

Freedom is often confused with the more contentious "free-will"..Free-will indicates the ability to choose or act without mediation by a administrative/supernatural power. Freedom is a subjective experience which can be achieved through the realization of free-will, but doesn't have to be achieved this way..the freedom of a masochist, for instance, is undeniable.

>> No.1693072

>>1693068
"the freedom of a masochist is undeniable"

Explain this statement.

>> No.1693092

>>1693072
Hm, I'll try..Freedom is a subjective experience, so of course there is no concrete definition of it. There are several archetypes which people base their own experience of freedom on, and these archetypes have developed over time (i don't want to be too abstract..so one archetype of "freedom" is they byronic hero, you know the brooding poet in the heart of nature? but there are countless others) A masochist experiences many things from his humiliation, sexual pleasure being one of the least of these (i mean seriously, if masochism were just about getting off then why would there be such a rich and complex symbolism associated with it?) I would say that "freedom" for the masochism is closely tied with deviance..Deviance is a way to experience freedom, just like free-will, but deviance does not require free-will, especially in the case of masochism..the dominatrix controls the masochist, and free-will is undermined in every conceivable way..the masochist is liberated from certain constraints (things like social norms and sexual repression) and this liberation creates the subjective experience of freedom. You'll have to forgive me if i'm not totally clear, I am coming up with this as I say it.

>> No.1693126

>>1693092
1. Insisting the subject matter at hand cannot be defined.
2. Appealing to archetypes, the crutch of all post-modern literary analysis.
3.Unfamiliarity with the subject, but attempting to press on anyway, through handwaving and bullshittery.

The sad result of the current American academic culture.

>> No.1693133

>>1693126
hey, he's got heart

>> No.1693152

>>1693126
>1.
I didn't insist that the subject matter at hand cannot be defined, but said that subjective experiences have no concrete definitions..which means they can be defined endlessly.
>2.
Archetypes are the crutch of post-modern analysis? I really don't think so, tim. Archetypes were made popular by Jung, and if anything archetypes would be in conflict with basic assumptions by post-modern thinkers about narratives (i.e. a post-modernist would say that the archetypes aren't behind unconscious thoughts and conscious action, but rather power-structures are behind the thoughts and actions and archetypes therefore reflect these power structures)
>3.
yes, people should only consider, discuss and explore what they are already familiar with. I think attitudes like yours are effete, self-negating and enslaved. And if you're trying to say that I should only post about things I am familiar with, I would suggest that you go somewhere other than 4chan for professional, informed opinions on academic subjects. >>1693133
indeed

>> No.1693182

>>1693152


1. The subject was freedom, you explicitly stated it could not be defined. Declaring a term to have infinite definitions is the same as refusing ti define it. If the rem freedom truly was meaningless it wouldn't be used at all.


2. Your invocation of the 'Byronic hero' had nothing at all to do with the conversation and was simply a prop you tried to use to lend credibility to your argument.

3. If you're going to make declarative statements about subjects you know nothing about, don't be surprised when people call you on your bullshit.

>> No.1693199

>>1693182
>Declaring a term to have infinite definitions is the same as refusing ti define i
No, it really isn't the same. More meaning does not equal no meaning.
>Your invocation of the 'Byronic hero' had nothing at all to do with the conversation and was simply a prop you tried to use to lend credibility to your argument.
It was really just a bad example.
>don't be surprised when people call you on your bullshit.
yeah but you call out my bullshit with your own bullshit.

>> No.1693209

>No, it really isn't the same. More meaning does not equal no meaning.

If you're going to use a term to advance an argument, you had better have a clear idea of what it means. And I would suggest actually defining the term, so your audience knows what the hell you are talking about.

>> No.1693228

>>1693209
Well freedom has no set Denotation, but it has many connotations--I was trying to relate this to how a masochist feels free by being tied up..the reason i was trying to bridge this gap was to create a certain image which would seem like a paradox, and would force the reader to expand her notions of the word freedom, so that freedom wouldn't be so closely confused with "free-will" It was really just a tangent, because I already said freedom and free-will weren't the same, and said that bit about masochist's feeling free, but someone asked me to explain what i meant by that (and since i've experienced this freedom personally, but never had to explain it, i kind of had a hard time doing so)

>> No.1694023

Well, there is freedom from any kind of active suppression, and there's freedom to do whatever you want. Everyone has the latter, but we must still deal with the world around us. I'm not free to oppose gravity, for instance. Similarly, I AM free to go on a killing spree, but that has consequences because of the nature of humans in the world around me. You are not free to have whatever world you want. You can only be free to deal with it in whatever way you choose.
A society cannot allow ultimate freedom (without consequence). You cannot be legally free to deny others their freedom.

Politically, it is the only thing that can be important. Denying citizens the happier life they want will not gain anyone's support. You have to fool people into thinking they are better off with a particular submission.

Example: You want to impose a law forcing all men to become engineers, because it will make your GDP increase (hypothetically). The men see this as a way to improve their lives, so they agree to it. It will not. It will deny many people the right to seek happiness in their own interests. It denies free exporation of other disciplines. This is blatant suppression that makes citizens more miserable, and we cannot allow it.

So basically, we can offer freedom FROM suppression, not freedom to deny others freedom.

>> No.1694045

Freedom is basically a chimera. I think it's much more productive (at least in the political sense) to talk about liberty.

>> No.1694050

>>1693072
I would just say that the masochist gets what he wants, so in a Hobbesian sense gains power, which he would say leads to freedom (accrual of power, which is what we're all supposed to be out for)
"Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling you something"