Freedom, the queernes of.
Hullo, in this post we're going to investigate the nature of freedom. Intriguing concept that, of course, ties in with politics. It's a favoured word of the USA, liberals and neoconservatives - but also with the left. I think, however, we're talking about slightly different things when we talk about freedom. I also think that there is something metaphysical over the way the word is used, and something very odd, too.
Anyway, this is a fairly linguistic analysis as usual. Let's see where it takes us. I'd like to leave a disclaimer first of all, though - I'm not "out" to remove freedom or something, I just want to clarify what it is we're talking about.
Freedom seems to be the absence of something. The absence of a power that forces you, in general. So far I think we're doing alright. It seems to be what everyone is talking about. But so often we can believe that we're talking about some Platonic Form when we use words like "hot" or "freedom" or "impressive".
However, isn't it invoked in other ways, too? Bring to mind the speeches by various American officials. "We must defend our freedom." "They hate our freedom." What freedom is that? And is freedom from a government really so free?
Freedom more philosophically ties in with the ancient determinism vs. free will argument. Are we free to act in different ways in different situations? My answer is "yes, sort of."
I think people who think that, say, Marxists deny people freedom in the grand scheme of things or that some other thing denies personal freedom (be it Freudian psychology or historical materialism) are out on very slippery ice. There are three main issues that I have with the conception of freedom as (what I'd like to call) a 'total' ontological category. That's to say, there is a freedom that is -completely- free. This seems to be what people talk about in general and what the word has impressed into our minds.
But freedom is just an absence of a forcing power in different levels, it's not an agents complete and total -given- power over himself.
Now, to the arguments.
First of all, attributes. With attributes I mean things like "intelligent", "short-tempered", "strong", "fast" or "bipolar". They can be many kinds, but they all have in common that we put them in the kind of sentences like "he is... (X)". "Why did Peter act that way at the party last night?" "You know Peter, he's so jealous." "Can he really run that distance?" "Sure, he's very fast." These attributes can be decreased, increased, lost or whatever else. But that is just another argument for their existance. These attributes are necessary to have a specific kind of dimension at all - an amoeba has no traits connected to thinking because it can't think. But with these traits, wherever it is they come from (and whether they be Forms, Tropes or whatever else), you find something that exists outside of it, something that somehow determines your behaviour. Of course, I don't think you can have a related behaviour without these traits of whatever category, but they do also create a kind of upper limit. That's the first constraint on 'freedom' (freedom as the metaphysical conception).
Second of all, epistemology. This is somewhat connected to attributes, but not quite. Basically, how can we know enough things to be completely free? We can be mistaken (which we often are), we can be wrong, we can be deceived, we can be in error, we can be ignorant. There is a cultural strain (which is widely regarded these days, but at times assaulted by various right-wingers - probably because they understand that it hampers the metaphysical freedom), there is your upbringing (another constraint attacked by some right-wing people) and so much else. But even if you don't accept culture and upbringing (in which case I think you and science should have a good, long talk) then you'll still face the greatest obstacle of all - you have no idea what your actions will lead to. You probably don't even have an idea what the next hour will be like. Time sweeps away the kind of certainty we need to be omnipotently free. Because that is what we need, we must basically be God to be entirely free. Otherwise the fog of war occludes the choices we have.
Lastly, the problem of relations. As social animals, humans live in groups and need other human beings. At this scale we all live in networks that function on a global scale all the while down to our most intimate relations. We need this, and there is nothing wrong in it. Our learning, our well being and our morality depend upon relations to others. But all of us know what a pain it can be, what a strain these relations can put on us. Unknown networks (called economics, culture, even racism and sexism) pull us in and toss us about. Our family makes demands. Our friends push us. This is the way of things. The ride, as it is, is bumpy. How can anyone deny that these relations exist and that they make us do things?
The good thing (as good as it is, don't understand me as a government apologist) of formal, bureaucratic structures is that they're visible (alright, mostly visible, but you can go look up whatever it is that is hidden by consulting the right books and so on). They have formal rules. This is important. Social relations don't. They have psychological rules, cultural rules and so on, but they are much more undefined than your general bureaucratic structure. You might understand what I am getting to. They also make demands on you. In some cases, informal structures take over more than formal ones when these subside. In the breakdown of a state people rely on their families, they lean on tradition and so on.
How are you going to have a metaphysical freedom in the wake of these social relations?
There we have it, then. I am not sure how my criticism can be overcome without some important retreats. But what must be understood is this. I am not looking to attack 'ontological' freedom, specifically. That's to say, that Sartrean freedom. But under this light, I think it's going to turn very queer into saying that you have complete, ontological freedom. Maybe it's possible, but I think it's just going to get weird and demand philosophical technicalities of the highest order.
Second of all, I am merely restating freedom. That's to say, the absence of a forcing power. This is even bringing freedom into other arenas - it attacks your very self. Breaking away from your own preconceptions is a kind of freedom. Breaking away from others preconceptions is a kind of freedom. Breaking away from a government or breaking away from an economical system that forces you into some actions (you guys must have seen that one coming :P) is a kind of freedom. But freedom, really, has no ontological status.
Anyway, this is a fairly linguistic analysis as usual. Let's see where it takes us. I'd like to leave a disclaimer first of all, though - I'm not "out" to remove freedom or something, I just want to clarify what it is we're talking about.
Freedom seems to be the absence of something. The absence of a power that forces you, in general. So far I think we're doing alright. It seems to be what everyone is talking about. But so often we can believe that we're talking about some Platonic Form when we use words like "hot" or "freedom" or "impressive".
However, isn't it invoked in other ways, too? Bring to mind the speeches by various American officials. "We must defend our freedom." "They hate our freedom." What freedom is that? And is freedom from a government really so free?
Freedom more philosophically ties in with the ancient determinism vs. free will argument. Are we free to act in different ways in different situations? My answer is "yes, sort of."
I think people who think that, say, Marxists deny people freedom in the grand scheme of things or that some other thing denies personal freedom (be it Freudian psychology or historical materialism) are out on very slippery ice. There are three main issues that I have with the conception of freedom as (what I'd like to call) a 'total' ontological category. That's to say, there is a freedom that is -completely- free. This seems to be what people talk about in general and what the word has impressed into our minds.
But freedom is just an absence of a forcing power in different levels, it's not an agents complete and total -given- power over himself.
Now, to the arguments.
First of all, attributes. With attributes I mean things like "intelligent", "short-tempered", "strong", "fast" or "bipolar". They can be many kinds, but they all have in common that we put them in the kind of sentences like "he is... (X)". "Why did Peter act that way at the party last night?" "You know Peter, he's so jealous." "Can he really run that distance?" "Sure, he's very fast." These attributes can be decreased, increased, lost or whatever else. But that is just another argument for their existance. These attributes are necessary to have a specific kind of dimension at all - an amoeba has no traits connected to thinking because it can't think. But with these traits, wherever it is they come from (and whether they be Forms, Tropes or whatever else), you find something that exists outside of it, something that somehow determines your behaviour. Of course, I don't think you can have a related behaviour without these traits of whatever category, but they do also create a kind of upper limit. That's the first constraint on 'freedom' (freedom as the metaphysical conception).
Second of all, epistemology. This is somewhat connected to attributes, but not quite. Basically, how can we know enough things to be completely free? We can be mistaken (which we often are), we can be wrong, we can be deceived, we can be in error, we can be ignorant. There is a cultural strain (which is widely regarded these days, but at times assaulted by various right-wingers - probably because they understand that it hampers the metaphysical freedom), there is your upbringing (another constraint attacked by some right-wing people) and so much else. But even if you don't accept culture and upbringing (in which case I think you and science should have a good, long talk) then you'll still face the greatest obstacle of all - you have no idea what your actions will lead to. You probably don't even have an idea what the next hour will be like. Time sweeps away the kind of certainty we need to be omnipotently free. Because that is what we need, we must basically be God to be entirely free. Otherwise the fog of war occludes the choices we have.
Lastly, the problem of relations. As social animals, humans live in groups and need other human beings. At this scale we all live in networks that function on a global scale all the while down to our most intimate relations. We need this, and there is nothing wrong in it. Our learning, our well being and our morality depend upon relations to others. But all of us know what a pain it can be, what a strain these relations can put on us. Unknown networks (called economics, culture, even racism and sexism) pull us in and toss us about. Our family makes demands. Our friends push us. This is the way of things. The ride, as it is, is bumpy. How can anyone deny that these relations exist and that they make us do things?
The good thing (as good as it is, don't understand me as a government apologist) of formal, bureaucratic structures is that they're visible (alright, mostly visible, but you can go look up whatever it is that is hidden by consulting the right books and so on). They have formal rules. This is important. Social relations don't. They have psychological rules, cultural rules and so on, but they are much more undefined than your general bureaucratic structure. You might understand what I am getting to. They also make demands on you. In some cases, informal structures take over more than formal ones when these subside. In the breakdown of a state people rely on their families, they lean on tradition and so on.
How are you going to have a metaphysical freedom in the wake of these social relations?
There we have it, then. I am not sure how my criticism can be overcome without some important retreats. But what must be understood is this. I am not looking to attack 'ontological' freedom, specifically. That's to say, that Sartrean freedom. But under this light, I think it's going to turn very queer into saying that you have complete, ontological freedom. Maybe it's possible, but I think it's just going to get weird and demand philosophical technicalities of the highest order.
Second of all, I am merely restating freedom. That's to say, the absence of a forcing power. This is even bringing freedom into other arenas - it attacks your very self. Breaking away from your own preconceptions is a kind of freedom. Breaking away from others preconceptions is a kind of freedom. Breaking away from a government or breaking away from an economical system that forces you into some actions (you guys must have seen that one coming :P) is a kind of freedom. But freedom, really, has no ontological status.
posted by Björn at 8:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home