A Different Use Of The Word "Freedom"

[quatona]

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.

What effect did it have on you when people pointed out that, yes, you were free and able to do these things because there were no external obstacles or limitations?

So, you are saying that one should be free to be unfree/inable to do something?

No. To be honest, I don´t even understand what this statement ("...one should be free to be unfree...") is supposed to mean.

Or, actually not to be thought of as having something wrong with them?

Basically, I am proposing to acknowledge inner lack of freedom as factual lack of freedom.

And you are relating this to freedom?

Well, yes: I am advocating a different use of the word "freedom".

 

[single eye]

We are never innocent victims, this is an illusion produced by futile attempts to free us from accepting responsibility. We do not always have total perfect recall of our past decisions and this makes it difficult to trace our decisions back to the first cause. Difficult, but not impossible, and well worth the effort. Not all our decisions are made consciously, yet we make them just the same and they have consequences.

 

[quatona]

We are never innocent victims, this is an illusion produced by futile attempts to free us from accepting responsibility.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

 

[lisah]

What effect did it have on you when people pointed out that, yes, you were free and able to do these things because there were no external obstacles or limitations?

The feeling something was wrong with me and that I needed psychological help. I don't think one can actually understand this unless they've experienced it. Like many things.

No. To be honest, I don´t even understand what this statement ("...one should be free to be unfree...") is supposed to mean.

(chuckles) Not judged.

Basically, I am proposing to acknowledge inner lack of freedom as factual lack of freedom. Well, yes: I am advocating a different use of the word "freedom".

(chuckles) Well, I do have a problem with the use of the word freedom in this way, because freedom just seems so external to me. I would have to think on it more.

 

[quatona]

The feeling something was wrong with me and that I needed psychological help.

Yes, that´s exactly what my idea is about: When people are stuck with a problem, implicitly or explicitly being told that there´s something wrong with them is counterproductive.
It seems to me that such reactions are more about sheltering one´s own worldview and idea of "right and wrong" than about helping the person getting a better grasp on their excellence.

I don't think one can actually understand this unless they've experienced it. Like many things.

Actually, I feel that everybody experiences this eventually ("I know that this option theoretically exists, but it is currently not to my disposal.")



(chuckles) Not judged.[/quote]
Ok, I see. That´s close.



(chuckles) Well, I do have a problem with the use of the word freedom in this way, because freedom just seems so external to me. I would have to think on it more.[/quote]
I find that a little confusing - after just having learned that you do have felt unfree to do something despite the lack of external limitations, and apparently as an intense experience.
But maybe it´s just a semantics problem?

 

[JJM]

I think there are two significant problems here. If you are suggesting that a mere feeling of incapacity qualifies as something equivalent to an external restriction, I think you are probably correct in that a person will truly not do something by free act of the will until they sufficiently believe themselves able to do it enough to try, but at the same time they may in fact otherwise have the capacity. However, this does not seem to be a completely adequate definition of freedom and indeed merely accidental to it. It is just one of the many restrictions which could inhibit activity. Moreover, to the extent this restriction is self imposed, it seems less and less like a real restriction.

However, it also seems that in formulating this definition you mixed epistemology and ontology by attempting to make the conclusion about one's freedom and the evidence that one has it (in an Incapabilist sense) the reality itself.

 

[quatona]

I think there are two significant problems here. If you are suggesting that a mere feeling of incapacity qualifies as something equivalent to an external restriction, I think you are probably correct in that a person will truly not do something by free act of the will until they sufficiently believe themselves able to do it enough to try, but at the same time they may in fact otherwise have the capacity.

The fact that they say "I can´t" suggests to me that they have already tried - unsuccessfully.
So I am assuming that their internal restriction is just as severe an obstacle as an external restriction would be.

However, this does not seem to be a completely adequate definition of freedom and indeed merely accidental to it. It is just one of the many restrictions which could inhibit activity. Moreover, to the extent this restriction is self imposed, it seems less and less like a real restriction.

However, it also seems that in formulating this definition you mixed epistemology and ontology by attempting to make the conclusion about one's freedom and the evidence that one has it (in an Incapabilist sense) the reality itself.

The thread title and the OP should have given away that I am neither approaching this in an ontological nor epistemological manner.
It´s not like I think there is freedom and we have to detect/define what it is.
I was merely contemplating on the use of a word.

 

[single eye]

quatona, my post#445 has to do with an internal blockage caused by ambivalence. This is an inner conflict where one part of us wants one thing and another part of us wants something contradictory. These inner conflicts can easily inhibit our ability to make decisions until resolved.

 

[quatona]

quatona, my post#445 has to do with an internal blockage caused by ambivalence. This is an inner conflict where one part of us wants one thing and another part of us wants something contradictory. These inner conflicts can easily inhibit our ability to make decisions until resolved.

Thanks for explaining!
(I was struggling with the relevance of the terms "victim" and "responsibility".)

 

[lisah]

Well, I do have a problem with the use of the word freedom in this way, because freedom just seems so external to me. I would have to think on it more.

I find that a little confusing - after just having learned that you do have felt unfree to do something despite the lack of external limitations, and apparently as an intense experience.
But maybe it´s just a semantics problem?

Well, It hasn't been long that I have actually even pondered these meanings. And . . . somehow . . . I come across this thread.

 

[JJM]

The fact that they say "I can´t" suggests to me that they have already tried - unsuccessfully.
So I am assuming that their internal restriction is just as severe an obstacle as an external restriction would be.

I'm inclined to believe that this is rarely the case. And of course there are gradations of trying.

If the internal restriction is nothing more than the belief that they cannot then while it may be as severe it is still self imposed, and could be overcome if the belief structure were different. If this is not the case, then the belief is not what is primarily restrictive but simply a recognition that there is in fact something else restricting their actions.

The thread title and the OP should have given away that I am neither approaching this in an ontological nor epistemological manner.
It´s not like I think there is freedom and we have to detect/define what it is.
I was merely contemplating on the use of a word.

Forgive me, quatona, but no definition can be purely semantic. The way we use words is to refer to realities. Moreover your definition involves belief formation so it is of necessity epistemological. If you do not believe that our word refers to anything, then it does not matter. However your response above does suggest that you think it refers to something. You seem to think there are capacities to act and restrictions upon them and a lack of said restriction. Even so, the way we typically use 'freedom' is to refer to the ontological capacity to do something and not the perception of whether or not one can do it and the conversation you have been having bares that out. If what you are really saying is that feeling as though you cannot do something makes you unable to do it then you your self recognize that being unable to do something is really what you are getting at. And while belief formation as to whether something is possible can create possible restrictions, it is not the only possible. restriction. Your definition suggests this, and GrowingSmaller pointed this out. Your addition of the word "only" does not fix this situation but worsens it.

Additionally while I admit that typically as we use freedom only conscious agents are capable of it, and belief formation with regard to capacity is something which conscious agents will probably always be able to form, it still does not seem that this belief formation is anything but accidental to freedom itself. It may be essential to freedom that it be done by conscious agent and essential to conscious agents that they hold these beliefs but it is accidental to freedom that conscious agents hold this belief because, I assume, it is their volitional aspect which is relevant to their capacity to act freely and this has no direct part in their belief formation for our purposes.

Anyway, the point that I was trying to make is that typically freedom is considered something like "A capacity to do something without restraint." And the question of free will comes into play when someone questions whether or not one can actually do anything other than what one's nature determines. The denier of free will claims that despite feeling as though you can do x or ~x you can in fact only do x. Defenders of free will often claim that the fact that I feel I can do x and ~x is evidence that I can. You seemed to try to side step the question by making the defenders epistemological claim the reality itself. I know that was not your intention when making the post, but assuming you were formulating your opinion on the basis of the established debate, I thought that historically you may have still made this mistake.

 

[quatona]

I'm inclined to believe that this is rarely the case. And of course there are gradations of trying.

If the internal restriction is nothing more than the belief that they cannot then while it may be as severe it is still self imposed, and could be overcome if the belief structure were different. If this is not the case, then the belief is not what is primarily restrictive but simply a recognition that there is in fact something else restricting their actions.

Ok, so you prefer to call "unfree/unable to do X" only those who are kept from it by demonstrably external restrictions. Consequently, you won´t use the word "freedom" in the way I suggested.
Thanks for your feedback!

Forgive me, quatona, but no definition can be purely semantic.

No need to ask for forgiveness for holding an opinion or for expressing it.

The way we use words is to refer to realities. Moreover your definition involves belief formation so it is of necessity epistemological. If you do not believe that our word refers to anything, then it does not matter. However your response above does suggest that you think it refers to something. You seem to think there are capacities to act and restrictions upon them and a lack of said restriction. Even so, the way we typically use 'freedom' is to refer to the ontological capacity to do something and not the perception of whether or not one can do it and the conversation you have been having bares that out. If what you are really saying is that feeling as though you cannot do something makes you unable to do it then you your self recognize that being unable to do something is really what you are getting at. And while belief formation as to whether something is possible can create possible restrictions, it is not the only possible. restriction. Your definition suggests this, and GrowingSmaller pointed this out. Your addition of the word "only" does not fix this situation but worsens it.

The fact that words refer to reality doesn´t change anything about definitions being purely semantic.
I understand that the way I suggest to use the word "freedom" doesn´t allow for the word "freedom" to singnify and emphasize a distinction that is important to you and that you would like to be signified by the word "freedom". The fact that I suggest a definition of this word, which doesn´t allow for it to signify this difference, doesn´t tell you anything about whether or not I acknowledge this difference and how important I find it. It only tells you that I don´t want this word to be used for this distinction.

My suggestion was purely semantic. If you want to make more of it, you lose me.

Additionally while I admit that typically as we use freedom only conscious agents are capable of it, and belief formation with regard to capacity is something which conscious agents will probably always be able to form, it still does not seem that this belief formation is anything but accidental to freedom itself. It may be essential to freedom that it be done by conscious agent and essential to conscious agents that they hold these beliefs but it is accidental to freedom that conscious agents hold this belief because, I assume, it is their volitional aspect which is relevant to their capacity to act freely and this has no direct part in their belief formation for our purposes.

You still are talking as though the definition of a word requires us to nail a concept that exists somewhere out there. This is not my opinion.

Anyway, the point that I was trying to make is that typically freedom is considered something like "A capacity to do something without restraint." And the question of free will comes into play when someone questions whether or not one can actually do anything other than what one's nature determines. The denier of free will claims that despite feeling as though you can do x or ~x you can in fact only do x. Defenders of free will often claim that the fact that I feel I can do x and ~x is evidence that I can. You seemed to try to side step the question by making the defenders epistemological claim the reality itself. I know that was not your intention when making the post, but assuming you were formulating your opinion on the basis of the established debate, I thought that historically you may have still made this mistake.

"Free will" is a whole nother can of worms, which I didn´t intend to discuss here and won´t.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

[elopez]

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.

Compatibilism defines freedom as a lack of both external and internal factors. Your theory seems similar to it. Only difference seems to be that your idea says "feel" and compatibilism says "actually."

Is your idea of freedom to exclude the acknowledgement of those external factors?

 

[quatona]

Compatibilism defines freedom as a lack of both external and internal factors. Your theory seems similar to it.

This seems to be a recurring misunderstanding: I am not presenting a theory or a philosophical model, I am proposing a way of using a word.

Is your idea of freedom to exclude the acknowledgement of those external factors?

No. Then again, I often have problems differenciating between internal and external factors.

 

[elopez]

This seems to be a recurring misunderstanding: I am not presenting a theory or a philosophical model, I am proposing a way of using a word.

No. Then again, I often have problems differenciating between internal and external factors.

That word, however, carries philosophical connotations. You're even posting in the Philosophy forum. If it's a recurring misunderstanding I think it'd be due to that that is not clarified in the OP.

You're still even carrying on some form of discussion as if it is philosophical by questioning the difference between external and internal factors.

 

[quatona]

That word, however, carries philosophical connotations.

Sure, and if I want to use it in a different way, I want it to carry a different philosophical connotation. It´s still just a word. Nothing about reality will change when we change our terminology. Pluto is still the same - "planet" or not.

You're even posting in the Philosophy forum. If it's a recurring misunderstanding I think it'd be due to that that is not clarified in the OP.

No need to get defensive - I didn´t blame you, or something.

However, I think the thread title made pretty clear that the thread was about the use of a word.

You're still even carrying on some form of discussion as if it is philosophical by questioning the difference between external and internal factors.

Well, you asked me a question, remember?
And I answered that I often can´t tell the difference.

If this approach isn´t "philosophical" enough for you, I can fully understand it.

 

[elopez]

Sure, and if I want to use it in a different way, I want it to carry a different philosophical connotation. It´s still just a word. Nothing about reality will change when we change our terminology. Pluto is still the same - "planet" or not.

That's fine if you want to have freedom carry different philosophical meanings than usually presented. I'm not saying you can't. Just saying if you are, it's awfully similar to the compatibilist view. I don't even really think it's changing much, especially not Pluto. Lol.

No need to get defensive - I didn´t blame you, or something.

However, I think the thread title made pretty clear that the thread was about the use of a word.

Not defensive. Just a bit confused. You said you weren't presenting a philosophical model. Then you said if you want the word to use the word another way it would be to carry different philosophical connotations. So, there lies the confusion.

Well, you asked me a question, remember?
And I answered that I often can´t tell the difference.

If this approach isn´t "philosophical" enough for you, I can fully understand it.

I would not even mind if it wasn't philosophical, I just thought it was being in these forums and the word itself. Though, I asked you a question about your way of using freedom.

 

[quatona]

That's fine if you want to have freedom carry different philosophical meanings than usually presented. I'm not saying you can't. Just saying if you are, it's awfully similar to the compatibilist view. I don't even really think it's changing much, especially not Pluto. Lol.

Maybe the confusion would go away if you´d realize that I am not talking about freedom, but about the word "freedom"?

Not defensive. Just a bit confused. You said you weren't presenting a philosophical model. Then you said if you want the word to use the word another way it would be to carry different philosophical connotations. So, there lies the confusion.

Sure, if we change the use of a word, it will carry different connotations.
It does not, however, mean that our view of reality or our philosophical convictions change.

I would not even mind if it wasn't philosophical, I just thought it was being in these forums and the word itself. Though, I asked you a question about your way of using freedom.

Something about my answer seemed to be unsatisfactory, though.

 

[single eye]

quatona, I believe your definition is lacking because you are ignoring ambivalence. More often than not what we want is not simple and straightforward, but complicated and confusing, and often contradictory. People think it is hard to "do the right thing". Actually, it is hard to know what "the right thing" is. Once we know, it is hard not to do the right thing.

 

[quatona]

quatona, I believe your definition is lacking because you are ignoring ambivalence. More often than not what we want is not simple and straightforward, but complicated and confusing, and often contradictory.

Au contraire, I´m fully aware of this fact.

People think it is hard to "do the right thing". Actually, it is hard to know what "the right thing" is. Once we know, it is hard not to do the right thing.

I have no idea how and why the idea of "right (and wrong) things to do" entered this thread.