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

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.

Ideology codes

• (none)