The concept of "freedom", as it currently exists, is too vague for anyone trying to present clear ideas to ever use.
The word has been abused to the extent that it is only a tool for propaganda or public control. It has been used in such a huge range of contexts from "privacy", "property", "economic options", "democracy", "development", "equality", or at times just "being ruled by us and not by those guys over there", and all of these have been used professionally in recent times.
The word should either be discarded, ignored, or re-purposed, because its current use is dangerous. Do you agree?
>>947026
The concept of "freedom", as it currently exists, is a spook.
>>947026
Freedom is just a code word for comfort. In the US at least.
>>947026
>The concept of "freedom"
>as it currently exists
freedom is now and forever has been a lie
Freedom is relative. If you go by semantics, there is no state that openly propagates the definition that isn't limited by certain means. If you by theological or philosophical lenses, it's contentious because most arguments reside over what freedom means, per individuals or consensus. There isn't an accepted interpretation of freedom in either, because it's given so much value and we constrain it to a simple word. So not matter what freedom you accept, you'll never be truly free in interpreting it; because you limit yourself to that definition alone. Freedom doesn't exist, or you can simply say that it's relative.
>>947580
but what if you truly believe that freedom is the original lie?
>>947580
I would argue that it doesn't cost anything to belief freedom doesn't exist. You don't lose something you never had in the first place. So believing it to be the original lie could be seen as a relative position, but totally reasonable.
Sorry, meant for >>947599 not me.
>>947026
No, because I reject your paleoconservative buzzword definitions.
>>947623
well assuming it is a lie then what is the truth? that freedom is "relative" like you say and that it is only sold as a means to take power over someone/something
You're right it shouldn't exist. We should put up what things you can do and what things you can't, and call it possibilities or whatever the fuck you want to. Everytime you put up the concept of freedom something criminal or two different ideas come up against the other and some wins, and the concept itself aproves both, or even, aproves everything if it has no restrictions, and having restrictions is not inherently freedom. It shouldn't be this way. We should clean up entirely that concept.
>>947654
Truth is the same freedom in this case - relative, or it doesn't exist as a monolithic, unifying idea. Ask people their definition of truth and it's more discrete than their idea of freedom. If you see truth or freedom as ways of gaining power, that doesn't necessarily define the concepts themselves. You can then ask yourself what power means, if truth and freedom can be its catalysts. What defines power? They are all broad definitions that we've chosen to narrow intentionally. This is where semantics fails, in my opinion.
For truth, I like entertaining the idea that we will never know; and in itself is an aspect of it. I consider the idea of truth less about knowing it versus trying to seek it out in different ways. In the same way some people believe that freedom is more about striving for it, than actually having it. Since to persist is to go against those that oppose you, which is a freedom of in itself.
That's pretty much true for any sort of word that you would use In a similar way. Does not mean they don't have value.
>>947599
LOL what's that even mean
>>947026
What the fuck, freedom is pretty straight forward. The more freedom you have, the more things you can do. If under one regime you have twelve options (economically or in whatever other domain) and in another you have 55, the second regime is freer. This is not difficult. People talk about it in a variety of contexts because it is a versatile concept. Get mad about "going" while you're at it: "Going to the store", "going to the mall", "going to puke", wow, how vague and dangerous, toss that word right out
>>947953
So freedom is about doing more things? Freedom is defined by a regime? You're giving predispositions what's "free". That's fairly restrictive. Also ask yourself whether or not being free is having the option of doing things versus actually doing them. Some people just like having the choice, but that doesn't make them free if they never choose it. That's illusory.
>>947961
>So freedom is about doing more things?
No, about being able to to more things. You can sit in a chair looking at the wall all day and still be free if you have other options.
> Freedom is defined by a regime?
Regime used in the most general sense to mean circumstances.
> Some people just like having the choice, but that doesn't make them free if they never choose it. That's illusory.
No, choices are real even if not taken. If I have a coffee maker, I can make coffee if I ever want to. Even if I don't ever use it, I have that option and someone without a machine does not; the option is physically, literally there. Not every option is like that, but many are.
>>947970
Right, so freedom is still relative. It's how you feel free, not how it's defined for you. Having more freedom doesn't mean having more things to do, as you said. Using your wall example, I don't need any options if I'm comfortable with what I have. So freedom clearly isn't about parameters, it's about preference. Nothing new has been said.
>>947975
> It's how you feel free, not how it's defined for you
> So freedom clearly isn't about parameters, it's about preference
Literally the opposite of what I said.
> Using your wall example, I don't need any options if I'm comfortable with what I have
"Need", "comfort" do not enter into it. The more choices you have, the more freedom you have. Which choices you make, how many you make or why you make them are how much of your freedom you exercise. You can't exercise more freedom than you have, but you can have more freedom than you exercise.
>>947982
Not the opposite of what you said. You said having more choices means having more freedom. That's a matter of preference.
How is 'having more choices' not a need? You want the ability to have options even if you don't exercise them. It's still a preference at the end of the day. Choice isn't a necessity to freedom. Go by the textbook definition of freedom and it's the ability to act without hindrance of restraint. Having less choices doesn't mean you're hindered or restrained. It's about how you exercise those choices that makes you free. If you stare at a wall all day, it doesn't matter if you have more options. You're eluding to the fact that choices grant freedom, not contentment. Your contentment in this case is having more choices. That doesn't equate to freedom.
>>947994
>You said having more choices means having more freedom. That's a matter of preference.
No. I can prefer to be able to fly, but I don't actually have that choice.
> Your contentment in this case is having more choices
Nah, like in a supermarket I'll just stare at the cereal options or whatever like two minutes because I really don't care and having to choose is annoying. Freedom is not always my preference.
> Having less choices doesn't mean you're hindered or restrained
If I wanted froot loops but didn't live near a store, yes, having less choices would hinder me. Not every hindrance and restriction is physical.
