A Different Use Of The Word "Freedom"

[quatona]

I am contemplating on the idea to define "freedom" from the inside, i.e. the encounter of the person in question.
It seems useful and reasonable for most every purpose and intent (possibly except for those who are about judging people) to consider a person free to do X if/when the person feels able to do X, and not free to do X if/when they feel unable to do X.
Consequently I´d recommend to always add "I am not free to do this now" or "I can do this not yet."

I offer this idea to you. If you feel like it, toy around with it and tell me your thoughts and feelings.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have a sound friend who is making a "space ship" and headed for a 2 week journey to Pluto. Even though he feels he can do it, he cant.

So maybe as well as feeling one can, one actually ought to have the capacity.

But then maybe, if one has the capacity, one can, whether one feels one can or not.

But youre right, there is a subjective "sense of freedom" I suppose. I think that feeling is repated to taxis, and so "feeling I can go to the cupboard to eat" is maybe part of a goal directed assessment.

 

[quatona]

I have a sound friend who is making a "space ship" and headed for a 2 week journey to Pluto. Even though he feels he can do it, he cant.

Good point, thanks!

I think I should add a word in this sentence:

It seems useful and reasonable for most every purpose and intent (possibly except for those who are about judging people) to consider a person free to do X only if/when the personfeelsable to do X, and not free to do X if/when theyfeel unable to do X.

 

[Roonwit]

Quatona

The problem I have with your definition is that is seems to justify a defeatist attitude if a person struggles to make some kind of change in their life. They can say to themselves, "Well, I'm just not able to do it, so I shouldn't bother trying." However, this is often proved to be wrong, as people can be helped to achieve things that they did not believe they could.

I note that your suggested qualification, "I'm not free to do this yet," helps address that concern a little. However, the trouble with such qualifications is that they often get forgotten. I think in general it is better to encourage the belief that we are free to do things, even if we feel unable. I think the key thing is about deciding to do it, not about being able to do it.

Roonwit

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Roonwit,

Quatona

The problem I have with your definition is that is seems to justify a defeatist attitude if a person struggles to make some kind of change in their life. They can say to themselves, "Well, I'm just not able to do it, so I shouldn't bother trying." However, this is often proved to be wrong, as people can be helped to achieve things that they did not believe they could.

Well, I think generally we are not in the position to tell others what changes others should make and/or are able to make, anyway.
Unless a person tells us they want to make a chance but can´t (and we are asked for help or advice).
In which case there isn´t much point in correcting them by telling them that by our definition of "free" or "able", and by virtue of what we acknowledge as an obstacle they are theoretically free or able to do that. They pretty certainly know that already.

I note that your suggested qualification, "I'm not free to do this yet," helps address that concern a little.

Yes. However, I do not agree with the "a little". I think it accounts perfectly for it.
I think instead of drawing them into a semantics discussion about "free/able", we should ask them questions like "What would (you) have to change in order to be free/able to do this?"

However, the trouble with such qualifications is that they often get forgotten.

Yes...on the other hand the same is forgotten when we tell people they are free and able to do that which they can´t yet without qualifiying it as "eventually you will be free/able".

I think in general it is better to encourage the belief that we are free to do things, even if we feel unable.

To me that seems pointless. It´s not like people in this don´t know that the obstacle is not someone holding a gun at their head or something.

I think the key thing is about deciding to do it, not about being able to do it.

Yeah, but that´s exactly what they feel unable/unfree to do yet: deciding to do it.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

If the original post is to indicate all humans are self-limiting to one degree or another, I agree. That self-limiting tendency derives from many facets.

 

[Roonwit]

Yeah, but that´s exactly what they feel unable/unfree to do yet: deciding to do it.

Yes, but you are elevating that feeling to the level of fact, justifying the assumption that because they feel unable they are unable. I suggest that it is better to challenge that assumption. You can make a decision if you want to. Not making a decision is a matter of not wanting to, not of being unable to.

This then clarifies the question 'what would you need to change?' that you asked. If what needs to change is their desire, then asking 'why don't you want to change?' is the key question. If they really do want to change but haven't the power, for example trying to overcome an addiction, the question becomes whether they want it enough to surrender some of their freedom in order to gain the greater freedom, for example going into rehab where they are prevented from accessing the thing they are trying to give up.

Roonwit

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Seemingly:

Without feeling we could be unable to act, except reflex actions. Some sense of confidence "I can do x" is preliminary to "I will to do x". And confidence is the result of an assessment, and assesments involve both reason and feeling.

 

[quatona]

Hey, Roonwit,

Yes, but you are elevating that feeling to the level of fact, justifying the assumption that because they feel unable they are unable.

Isn´t that exactly what you are saying, too: They are unable because they feel unable?

I suggest that it is better to challenge that assumption. You can make a decision if you want to. Not making a decision is a matter of not wanting to, not of being unable to.

Yeah, that seems to be the difference between our approaches.
Personally, and for completely pragmatic reasons, I feel it is not a good idea to "challenge" persons who are looking for a way out of a problem, it is an even worse idea to do that by means of questioning their use of words, and it´s a terrible idea to do anything that might give them the feeling there´s something wrong with them.

This then clarifies the question 'what would you need to change?' that you asked. If what needs to change is their desire, then asking 'why don't you want to change?' is the key question.

1. "Why don´t you want to change?" is not a question you ask a person who just told you they want to change. At least not if you want them to trust you, and want them to feel you trust them.
2. Asking "What´s the cause?" is a step back from asking for "What´s the solution?". Actually, I consider it a completely unhelpful question. But, obvioulsy, I have the entire fraction of psychoanalysts against me, on that topic.

If they really do want to change but haven't the power, for example trying to overcome an addiction, the question becomes whether they want it enough to surrender some of their freedom in order to gain the greater freedom, for example going into rehab where they are prevented from accessing the thing they are trying to give up.

I don´t think that people who have such a problem are very responsive to abstractions like these.
It seems to me that more often than not our attempts to help them are accompanied by our attempts to teach them our worldview first.

 

[Roonwit]

Isn´t that exactly what you are saying, too: They are unable because they feel unable?

No, on the contrary, I am saying that just because they feel unable does not mean they are unable.

Yeah, that seems to be the difference between our approaches.
Personally, and for completely pragmatic reasons, I feel it is not a good idea to "challenge" persons who are looking for a way out of a problem, it is an even worse idea to do that by means of questioning their use of words, and it´s a terrible idea to do anything that might give them the feeling there´s something wrong with them.

Someone who is looking for a way out of a problem already knows there is something wrong with them. What they are trying to find out is what that is and how they can change it.

1. "Why don´t you want to change?" is not a question you ask a person who just told you they want to change. At least not if you want them to trust you, and want them to feel you trust them.
2. Asking "What´s the cause?" is a step back from asking for "What´s the solution?". Actually, I consider it a completely unhelpful question. But, obvioulsy, I have the entire fraction of psychoanalysts against me, on that topic.

The way in which you word your assistance to a person seeking help will vary according to the situation. There may be times when I would use a form of words similar to what you are suggesting. However, in general it strikes me as being a form of appeasement (sorry - another war-related English-language metaphor... I mean giving into unreasonable demands in the hope that the problem will go away, like Chamberlain did with Hitler. It hardly ever works.) If the key problem is the person's desires, they need to be brought to address those; pretending that the problem is something else is not going to be productive. It may soothe their feelings, but will not help them out of their problem.

In any case, I understood your OP to be regarding a philosophical understanding of 'freedom' at the level of epistemology and/or ontology, rather than about the words we might use to help someone (in which case the thread might be better placed in a different part of the forum).

I don´t think that people who have such a problem are very responsive to abstractions like these.
It seems to me that more often than not our attempts to help them are accompanied by our attempts to teach them our worldview first.

I'm not sure they would be particularly more responsive to the way you are approaching things.

It is inevitable that our worldview will fundamentally affect the way we help people, and that if people are to find our help helpful then they will need to share key parts of our worldview. That is as true for you as for me or anyone else.

Roonwit

 

[Tree of Life]

I am contemplating on the idea to define "freedom" from the inside, i.e. the encounter of the person in question.
It seems useful and reasonable for most every purpose and intent (possibly except for those who are about judging people) to consider a person free to do X if/when the person feels able to do X, and not free to do X if/when they feel unable to do X.
Consequently I´d recommend to always add "I am not free to do this now" or "I can do this not yet."

I offer this idea to you. If you feel like it, toy around with it and tell me your thoughts and feelings.

It seems that this is what compatibalists mean by "free will". I am a compatibalist. We are free if we're able to do what we want. We lack freedom if we are unable to do what we want.

Did I get you wrong?

 

[quatona]

It seems that this is what compatibalists mean by "free will". I am a compatibalist. We are free if we're able to do what we want. We lack freedom if we are unable to do what we want.

Did I get you wrong?

I may be mistaken, but as far as I know the compatibilist tends to define this freedom by lack of external restrictions.
Whereas the core of my idea was to acknowledge internal restrictions as limitations of freedom.

 

[single eye]

The key to change is understanding purpose. A lot of time is wasted trying to determine motive. Motives are many because they deal with symptoms and not root causes. Finding the root cause is the hard part but once done the solution is easy.

 

[quatona]

Someone who is looking for a way out of a problem already knows there is something wrong with them. What they are trying to find out is what that is and how they can change it.

Yes, it´s possible that they are judging themselves as harshly as you judge them.
That´s completely alien to my approach, though. I guess we have to agree to disagree here.

The way in which you word your assistance to a person seeking help will vary according to the situation. There may be times when I would use a form of words similar to what you are suggesting. However, in general it strikes me as being a form of appeasement (sorry - another war-related English-language metaphor... I mean giving into unreasonable demands in the hope that the problem will go away, like Chamberlain did with Hitler. It hardly ever works.) If the key problem is the person's desires, they need to be brought to address those; pretending that the problem is something else is not going to be productive. It may soothe their feelings, but will not help them out of their problem.

Again, I disagree.
But I have asked for your feelings and opinions, you have given yours, I think I have understood your, and I notice we work from very different approaches.
So I´ll leave it at that.

In any case, I understood your OP to be regarding a philosophical understanding of 'freedom' at the level of epistemology and/or ontology, rather than about the words we might use to help someone (in which case the thread might be better placed in a different part of the forum).

I am afraid I am totally and utterly a pragmatist in such things - it´s all about how our views serve us and others best.

I'm not sure they would be particularly more responsive to the way you are approaching things.

Well, I am.

It is inevitable that our worldview will fundamentally affect the way we help people, and that if people are to find our help helpful then they will need to share key parts of our worldview. That is as true for you as for me or anyone else.

With this, too, I disagree. Oftentimes it is enough to help them find new and different ways of thinking (beyond the thought loops they are stuck in) - and these needn´t be my ways of thinking.

 

[lesliedellow]

I am not sure whether you are talking about the compatibleist view of free will, wherein you are free to do as you desire, even though your desires and actions are, in fact, wholly determined; whether by the laws of nature, or by the will of God, or by both.

Of course, being free to do as you desire does not include jumping 100 feet into the air.

 

[Roonwit]

Quatona

I'm interested to know: do you have practical experience of you or others using your approach effectively? Or is it just theory?

Roonwit

 

[quatona]

Quatona

I'm interested to know: do you have practical experience of you or others using your approach effectively?

Sure I have.
I wouldn´t recommend any approach that I haven´t successfully practised.

 

[lisah]

I find myself thinking of "feeling free to do something" as being something apart from the idea of freedom. The idea of freedom seems to me external, mostly because freedom can be taken away by society. Yet the feeling of being free to do something, being an internal sense of free-ness can exist in a latent form, even during the loss of external freedom.

Maybe this is way off what it is you are thinking?

 

[quatona]

Hey Lisah, good to see you again!

I find myself thinking of "feeling free to do something" as being something apart from the idea of freedom. The idea of freedom seems to me external, mostly because freedom can be taken away by society. Yet the feeling of being free to do something, being an internal sense of free-ness can exist in a latent form, even during the loss of external freedom.

Maybe this is way off what it is you are thinking?

No, it´s not way off what I am thinking (IOW: I´d tend to agree with it), but I don´t think it´s the point I was trying to make.
While you seem to concentrate on a feeling of being free despite external limitations of your freedom, I was rather concentrating on the feeling of being unfree/inable to do something in the absence of external limitations. Furthermore I was pleading for the acceptance of such internal limitations as factual inability to take the action the person feels unfree/inable to do.
Does that clarify?

 

[lisah]

Hey Lisah, good to see you again!


No, it´s not way off what I am thinking (IOW: I´d tend to agree with it), but I don´t think it´s the point I was trying to make.
While you seem to concentrate on a feeling of being free despite external limitations of your freedom, I was rather concentrating on the feeling of being unfree/inable to do something in the absence of external limitations. Furthermore I was pleading for the acceptance of such internal limitations as factual inability to take the action the person feels unfree/inable to do.
Does that clarify?

Well, having experienced panic attacks in the past I think I can understand this to some degree. I have experienced times being inable to do some things, and still experience that.

So, you are saying that one should be free to be unfree/inable to do something? Or, actually not to be thought of as having something wrong with them? And you are relating this to freedom?