User:RD/9k/freedom (Q778)

Main entry

778. Q778/Q778

     freedom

     (top-level category) -> one of the only terms worse than free will in terms of how many definitions it has. genuinely don't use this Item except to list the category on category pages
778. Q778/Q778 freedom -> tradition: Liberal-republicanism (LR), Kantianism (IK), Existentialist-Structuralist tradition (ES), anarchism (A)
     any philosophy can talk about this concept, obviously, but these are the main ones that popularized it or insist on it

Definitions of freedom

618. freedom (lack of limitation on capabilities; Feuerbach)
618. freedom (lack of necessity; Avakian) [1]
618. freedom (absorption of all necessity applying inside society into theories of society) [2] / The realm of freedom can blossom forth only with necessity as its basis (Marx)
618. Freedom cannot be possessed / Freedom cannot be had / Freedom is always negative / There are no positive freedoms / Freedom is never something you "have" or "are", and is always a thing that is absent or that you are not; although positive freedoms can be defined even positive freedoms are in fact always negative freedoms / Freedom cannot be possessed; it must come in the form of destroying something else -> it took me such a long time to figure this out. literally at least six years. but this model of freedom is literally the only way for any concept of anarchism to make sense or to understand all forms of anarchism on a single historical timeline
     Anarchy isn't about taking things away + Freedom cannot be possessed = Anarchy is about taking things away.
618. Anarchism is partly defined by erroneously declaring a natural or inanimate process to be deliberate oppression and the attempt to overcome that process to be an inherent or deserved freedom; inanimate processes humans are upset with may include the collision of separate growing populations (chunk competition), the perpetual upward or downward motion of corporations ("infinite growth" or post-structuralist civilization), capitalism hitting equilibrium ("modernity", "technofeudalism", or historical periods becoming stationary), nation-state borders hitting equilibrium ("decadence" or large-scale nationogenesis), Liberal-republican elections ("polarization", "populational schizophrenia", or strictly un-thinking decision processes), other towns of people failing to learn about something that never interacts with them ("prejudices" or Einsteinian gaps), people existing each day specifically through acquiring more products ("consumerism", or capitalism), corporations supposedly programming everybody with the wrong values or incorrect portrayals of particular real-life phenomena, or simply every single individual failing to do what somebody subjectively believes to be ethical -> this is one of the strongest connecting threads between charcoal anarchism, blue anarchism, brown anarchism, and orange anarchism.
618. "Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" [3] -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean fucking (pronounced censored) anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

Freedom and Habermasian logic

579. Q579/Q579

     unfitting action

     (truth value) / vicious individual action
575. Q575/Q575

     does not promote freedom

     (truth value)
580. Q580/Q580

     fitting action

     (truth value) / virtuous individual action
576. Q576/Q576

     promotes freedom

     (truth value)

Freedom and government

618. Government can create liberty / Government can create freedom (Liberal-republicanism)
618. Government cannot create liberty / Formal government cannot create freedom; it cannot create the ability to act and choose freely (anarchism, meta-Marxism) -> this is the crux of the three-way conflict between anarchism, Communism, and Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism uniquely believes that government can create Liberty. anarchism often does not believe that, and believes that some tiny-scale process such as The Subject is responsible for creating Freedom/Liberty while formal government can only take it away or at least act in contradiction to it. however, when faced with Bolshevism, anarchism and Liberal-republicanism have similar reactions — both of them tend to aggressively turn into "anarchism" and insist that Bolshevism is killing The Subject and must be Zinovievized in order to create Freedom From Communism.
     in this sense, Liberal-republicanism is a deep contradiction. on one hand, Liberal-republicanism tries to insist at various times that because "democracy" is capable of creating Freedom and poverty is a lack of Freedom it must be that "democracy" can socially construct a lack of poverty. on the other, it can only actually try to achieve that end through actions that attack Freedom. nobody who supports Liberal-republicanism wants to acknowledge this, although it is an inevitable thing to recognize if you adhere to Liberal-republican frameworks. Liberal-republicanism is not founded on any generalized concept of social progress, but strictly on concepts of peace and Freedom. so if Liberal-republicanism has to do anything that limits Freedom even for the purpose of protecting Freedom it becomes a really big problem. Liberal-republican theory is almost entirely the study of Freedom. this makes it very difficult to push anything that doesn't revolve around Freedom, such as Marxism, in a country that has adopted Liberal-republicanism, although things that do happen to revolve around Freedom such as anarchism have a somewhat easier time. so here's the part absolutely everybody misses: that's a catastrophe. that's not okay. Freedom itself is a heavily incoherent concept which is itself almost inherently built on intolerance and destruction. having to work with a national culture that has built itself on Freedom is actually in and of itself an apocalyptic, world-threatening proposition.

Contradictions of freedom

618. I came to Tel Aviv to be who I was, but it became clear I was welcome as a lesbian, not a Palestinian [4] -> case of: joining a "community" for a specific identity not leading to acceptance of other identities; violation of Rhizome model.

Ideology codes

• (none)