To what extent, and why, is 'freedom' a 'problem'?

[bhamgeezer]

I am pretty set into the belief that freedom is simply an epistemological problem, I don't know why it just seems more feasible than any alternative I have encountered.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I am pretty set into the belief that freedom is simply an epistemological problem

Can you explain what you mean by that?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, meaning is crucial. We are beings that look for and create meaning. This desire for meaning may be a good way into answering the question of where our purpose comes from.

Meaning. The product of human brains taking things in, grinding them up, as they do, and spitting out a recombination.

Intestines make shit. Brains make meaning.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Re: 'Pre-conscious' - choice is not the same as rationality.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Also, all of the mind is integrated and coordinated. We are aware of subconscious drives, and can choose our passions.

 

[Knotted]

so if they don't facilitate the illusion they are the illusion. their self-referentiality cannot save them.

Why talk about illusions? Does a demagogue sow illusions? Possibly. But also possibly not.

If the problem is illusion, then what is needed is a stripping away process. But is it not possible that the problem is that something needs to be added?

Why do you have to translate what I say into this sort of language? Do I really mean something different? Your translation is a translation to a depiction of a simplistic world. The problem is that the world isn't simplistic.

I was talking in a generality. But the generality isn't about content - this or that illusion. It was about the form demagogic discourse takes.

If someone says they are fighting for freedom they are not offering you a vision. They need not be presenting you with an illusion, they maybe sincere. They are not offering you a way to think and apply your thought for yourself. Rather they are posing as someone you should identify with.

Of course this not to ban all talk of freedom. If, for example, someone says they are fighting for the freedom of political prisoners then it is clear what they mean.

well, hold on, what do you say?

they can give it a social importance, whose value you stand against capital. assert freedom and organic labour.

Or the opposite.

Think of your question in the OP. We have a problem of freedom. Why understand things in problematic terms? The urgent conditions that give rise to this sort of talk of freedom will not be hidden when you stop this sort of talk. They are there in plain sight. What is needed is coprehension.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Re: 'Pre-conscious' - choice is not the same as rationality.

Also, all of the mind is integrated and coordinated. We are aware of subconscious drives, and can choose our passions.

I don't understand what you're getting at with these posts. Sorry.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

They're not separated, they're part of a circuit, alluding to recent neuroscience that explains consciousness as the coordinated activity of the entire brain.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Why talk about illusions? Does a demagogue sow illusions? Possibly. But also possibly not.

You reminded that the more talk about freedom the less there really is. I thought you meant liberal capitalist democracy, ideology, 'false consciousness' and that.

If the problem is illusion, then what is needed is a stripping away process. But is it not possible that the problem is that something needs to be added?

Why do you have to translate what I say into this sort of language? Do I really mean something different? Your translation is a translation to a depiction of a simplistic world. The problem is that the world isn't simplistic.

Sorry. I was rather jolly.

I was talking in a generality. But the generality isn't about content - this or that illusion. It was about the form demagogic discourse takes.

If someone says they are fighting for freedom they are not offering you a vision. They need not be presenting you with an illusion, they maybe sincere. They are not offering you a way to think and apply your thought for yourself. Rather they are posing as someone you should identify with.

Of course this not to ban all talk of freedom. If, for example, someone says they are fighting for the freedom of political prisoners then it is clear what they mean.



Or the opposite.

Oh, I agree.

And there is also the 'honest', 'transparent' 'operational' non-demagoguery presenting itself as just implementing a consensus, serving, managing. Gordon Brown seems like one.important.

 

[Knotted]

You reminded that the more talk about freedom the less there really is. I thought you meant liberal capitalist democracy, ideology, 'false consciousness' and that.

I was talking about ideology. You are right to see that. But is ideology an illusion or even a false consciousness? The point I think you are missing is that ideology need not be like a filter on reality. The lack of a filter may be just as much ideology. In the Marxist sense. For example, commodity fetishism is a reality. It isn't a false understanding. You cannot overcome it through education. You cannot dissolve the illusion.

Sorry. I was rather jolly.

I wasn't annoyed, if that's the impression you have. I don't mind you interpreting what I say, I just question the impulse that made you do it.

Oh, I agree.

And there is also the 'honest', 'transparent' 'operational' non-demagoguery presenting itself as just implementing a consensus, serving, managing. Gordon Brown seems like one.important.

I don't know. I'd say that is demagogy as well. New Labour is extremely demagogic. The only time I could watch Blair on television without wanting to throw a slipper at him, was during the Iraq war, when he was at least clear about his intentions and his reasons. He was even clear that the alleged WMD's were just a pretext. I find it bizarre and troubling that New Labour became deeply unpopular at precisely this time. I suspect it's a backlash against Thatcher's style of government. We don't like politicians, but politicians with opinions - that's just unspeakable.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I was talking about ideology. You are right to see that. But is ideology an illusion or even a false consciousness? The point I think you are missing is that ideology need not be like a filter on reality. The lack of a filter may be just as much ideology. In the Marxist sense. For example, commodity fetishism is a reality. It isn't a false understanding. You cannot overcome it through education. You cannot dissolve the illusion.

Whichever sense (or facet) of ideology we are talking about, it is still the same matter. That we have real social freedom or individuality in capitalism, or even that we're post-feminist, post-racist, or that we 'communicate' more, are all facets of ideology that we are able to believe in because of the means by which those very things are denied. These are the kinda of things you have been talking about. Although I agree that ideology isn't inherently false or illusory ('true consciousness'?), 'false consciousness' is the result of how socialisation is stagnated and fragmented - it's part of Marx's conception of alienation in capitalism.

Commodity fetishism, by definition, is a mystification, that even functions as part of capitalism in economistic ways. But why does that stop it being illusory? It is a result of social reality; it is also false.

We try to remove the lens, then we can get something more real than itself because it is built on the same sand. The point being we are just altering the lenses so that they appear to be transparent.

Someone who sees things in reality that aren't there is said to be deluded. But what is someone who, instead, realises what is missing..?

I wasn't annoyed, if that's the impression you have. I don't mind you interpreting what I say, I just question the impulse that made you do it.

OK.

One reason is that I was referring to how 'we' [the 'chimeric 51%' who are 'pro-war'?] don't like politicians with opinions. Well, they no longer like to have opinions. But it can't work - all the self-referentiality of language, a normativity, tensionless of politics, a counterfeit of politics. That still can't work.

I was drunk and can't account for it.

I don't know. I'd say that is demagogy as well. New Labour is extremely demagogic. The only time I could watch Blair on television without wanting to throw a slipper at him, was during the Iraq war, when he was at least clear about his intentions and his reasons. He was even clear that the alleged WMD's were just a pretext. I find it bizarre and troubling that New Labour became deeply unpopular at precisely this time. I suspect it's a backlash against Thatcher's style of government. We don't like politicians, but politicians with opinions - that's just unspeakable.

Despite what I said above, "You are the power; the power is you". Any trace of politics is to be removed. We are dealing with an attempt to construct a truly positive world.

 

[Knotted]

I'm off on a holiday break. I don't have time to answer at the minute. I will reply in a few days. In the mean time could you clarify something? When you say, "You are the power; the power is you" are you expressing your own view or are you characterising New Labour?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Characterising New Labour, if anything.

Have a good one.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Erich Fromm's 'Escape from Freedom' is an excellent read on this subject.

Fromm suggests that many people, rather than utilising it successfully, attempt to minimise its negative effects by developing thoughts and behaviours that provide some form of security. These are as follows:

1. Authoritarianism: Fromm characterises the authoritarian personality as containing a sadist element and a masochist element. The authoritarian wishes to gain control over other people in a bid to impose some kind of order on the world, they also wish to submit to the control of some superior force which may come in the guise of a person or an abstract idea.

2. Destructiveness: Although this bears a similarity to sadism, Fromm argues that the sadist wishes to gain control over something. A destructive personality wishes to destroy something it cannot bring under its control.

3. Conformity: This process is seen when people unconsciously incorporate the normative beliefs and thought processes of their society and experience them as their own. This allows them to avoid genuine free thinking, which is likely to be anxiety provoking.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

They're not separated, they're part of a circuit, alluding to recent neuroscience that explains consciousness as the coordinated activity of the entire brain.

What does that mean, and what in neuroscience are you referring to?

 

[chainsaw cat]

It's just another word for nothin' left to lose.

Freedom's just a word. If I'm gonna die for a word, I get to choose my own word.

 

[Knotted]

Whichever sense (or facet) of ideology we are talking about, it is still the same matter. That we have real social freedom or individuality in capitalism, or even that we're post-feminist, post-racist, or that we 'communicate' more, are all facets of ideology that we are able to believe in because of the means by which those very things are denied. These are the kinda of things you have been talking about. Although I agree that ideology isn't inherently false or illusory ('true consciousness'?), 'false consciousness' is the result of how socialisation is stagnated and fragmented - it's part of Marx's conception of alienation in capitalism.

I like the above. I've highlighted a bit I think is right, but you don't draw out the significant point.

Why is false consciousness the result of social stagnation and fragmentation? What is false consciousness? What is being hidden? What is it that appears to be there but isn't really there?

For marxists, ideology is not about the failure to see the world as it is, but to see the world as it is as the inevitable result of cold, hard logic. That capitalism is the natural state of things. Ideology derives from seeing ideas as the expression of pure thought. Remember that philosophy by itself can be no more than tinkering with ideology.

Commodity fetishism, by definition, is a mystification, that even functions as part of capitalism in economistic ways. But why does that stop it being illusory? It is a result of social reality; it is also false.

We try to remove the lens, then we can get something more real than itself because it is built on the same sand. The point being we are just altering the lenses so that they appear to be transparent.

Someone who sees things in reality that aren't there is said to be deluded. But what is someone who, instead, realises what is missing..?

Perhaps if we see the above in the light of what I have said, then we can see that even if we build elsewhere we are still building on sand as long as we are taking part in a philosophical investigation into the role and relation of ideas. The critique of ideology needs to be political. This is why we should address questions of freedom in a concrete political light rather than a philosophical light. When someone talks about freedom, whose freedom are they talking about? What is obscured?

OK.

One reason is that I was referring to how 'we' [the 'chimeric 51%' who are 'pro-war'?] don't like politicians with opinions. Well, they no longer like to have opinions. But it can't work - all the self-referentiality of language, a normativity, tensionless of politics, a counterfeit of politics. That still can't work.

I was drunk and can't account for it.

Despite what I said above, "You are the power; the power is you". Any trace of politics is to be removed. We are dealing with an attempt to construct a truly positive world.

You see this is the interesting thing. Why is New Labour's apparently apolitical politics so accepted? Another interesting thing is this scandal about expenses. People are really pissed off all of a sudden. It's like politicians are supposed to be dutiful public servants. It isn't like those at the centre of the scandal were selling out their politics. We can't think of politicians as being motivated by political ideals.

When we have really strange ideas that are so nearly universal, we know we are in the grip of ideology, even if it is an anti-ideology ideology.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I left this - had to think more carefully.

I like the above. I've highlighted a bit I think is right, but you don't draw out the significant point.

Why is false consciousness the result of social stagnation and fragmentation? What is false consciousness? What is being hidden? What is it that appears to be there but isn't really there?

With regard commodity fetishism, it is the perfection of the object, presented only in its exchange value and, therefore, in some way, as self-equivalent. This appearance not only obscures the process of production (including exploitation), this same process includes the worker's experience of himself as a fragment within the social production that creates the temptation to make up for his estrangement from himself and others in the form of the appropriation of the commodity. To some extent, the same goes for the capitalists, only to a lesser extent. It extends itself to the hyperreal, to culture in general, and not just the commodity form.

For marxists, ideology is not about the failure to see the world as it is, but to see the world as it is as the inevitable result of cold, hard logic. That capitalism is the natural state of things.

Isn't this 'pure thought/abstraction' again? What about experience?

Perhaps if we see the above in the light of what I have said, then we can see that even if we build elsewhere we are still building on sand as long as we are taking part in a philosophical investigation into the role and relation of ideas. The critique of ideology needs to be political. This is why we should address questions of freedom in a concrete political light rather than a philosophical light. When someone talks about freedom, whose freedom are they talking about? What is obscured?

Remember the embedded context. There is a fundamental difference between metaphysical freedom (which, I think, is real) and freedom as it is embodied in relations between people (social freedom, independent from metaphysical powers). It becomes a political question because of the technocratic form of politics that excludes most people from its project, and thereby precludes real freedom.

You see this is the interesting thing. Why is New Labour's apparently apolitical politics so accepted? Another interesting thing is this scandal about expenses. People are really pissed off all of a sudden. It's like politicians are supposed to be dutiful public servants. It isn't like those at the centre of the scandal were selling out their politics. We can't think of politicians as being motivated by political ideals.

When we have really strange ideas that are so nearly universal, we know we are in the grip of ideology, even if it is an anti-ideology ideology.

And we need to break out of it. But how?

What worries me is that this passes for politics here but in the united states, the power-centre of capitalism, there is the possibility that there could be revolution (I think so), but a desirable revolution isn't likely to happen, without a real project/class to take over power there is more likely fascism.

 

[bhamgeezer]

How has the notion of freedom become marxist political philosophy

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

How has the notion of freedom become marxist political philosophy

If not via Hegel then at least as a project to create a free society.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

It's the tale of two cities - we see all the potentials, all the things that can be done, the cultural production, everything. But potentials which are nowhere near fully realised. It becomes confusing experience when it's mistaken as the reality itself. A contradictory experience.

 

[bonjour]

We experience the possibility of choice, and we make choices.

But why is this question important? It is practically useless.

If this question is practically useless, how did you determine that it is important or shares importance?

that gives us the basis of the question? *Why* is it important?

(e2a: added s to "share")

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

If this question is practically useless, how did you determine that it is important or shares importance?



(e2a: added s to "share")

It seems to be important. People talk about it for hours and hours. So did I. But now I think it is a non-problem. It's not that either side is incoherent. The problem is.

The other dimension of the term I think comes into play. Is it a roundabout way of addressing less speculative problems?

Hope it makes sense.

 

[bonjour]

It seems to be important. People talk about it for hours and hours. So did I. But now I think it is a non-problem. It's not that either side is incoherent. The problem is.

The other dimension of the term I think comes into play. Is it a roundabout way of addressing less speculative problems?

Hope it makes sense.

Well I understand as far as that, it's a non problem. That makes sense. It's just as unimportant as discussing whether God exists or not.

2nd point though, I'm not aware of any other dimension of the term "why"
I imagine if you're talking about another dimension of the term you must be on a completely new term/word to 'why' and perhaps you're just not aware of the term to describe that "dimension"

why means...why. That's it.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

i meant freedom, sorry - political/social freedom

 

[bonjour]

I think I understand, why is freedom important? Is that what you are asking?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

the 'determinism vs free will' question, if it is a non-problem. maybe it's just religion, or is it a roundabout way of addressing what i just mentioned? or something else?

 

[Caecilian]

the 'determinism vs free will' question, if it is a non-problem. maybe it's just religion, or is it a roundabout way of addressing what i just mentioned? or something else?

I think that theres certainly a link between the free will/ determinism question and the issue of political freedom, but like you say its kind of a roundabout link. I'll try to explain what I mean.

Free will/ determinism is one of the big problems in philosophy of mind, a very real philosophical issue, and very important if you're interested in that stuff (which I am). We certainly experience having free will, but also we have good reasons for thinking that higher-level phenomena reduce ontologically to lower-level phenomena. Which makes our 'freely chosen' decisions ontologically reducible to sets of neurological events. And since these events are physical and therefore either deterministic (think Newtonian Mechanics) or probabilistic (think QM), in what sense are they 'free'?

An added complication is the work of Libet, which appears to demonstrate that there is a physiological event ('readiness potential') which occurs prior to a 'freely chosen' decision, but which is predictive of what the decision will be. Exactly what Libet's work does demonstrate is a continuing source of argument for neuro-psychologists and philosophers.

There are 3 basic responses to this:

1. No, we're not free. Free will is an illusion. Skinner eek:) was a real enthusiast for this view.

2. Mental states aren't reducible to physical states, even ontologically. Free will is therefore possible. This implies some sort of dualism/ idealism, and tends to shade into religion .

3. Compatibilism (my favoured position), which says that free will has nothing to do with ontological reduction in the first place. Rather, when we say that we do something of our own free will, its a way of taking responsibility for the action.

At this point, we start to approach the issue of political freedom. If free will is about responsibility, and freedom is a good thing, then we want to be giving people greater responsibility for their own lives. This is particularly true if (as I would) we link up the compatibilist position to a notion of biological autonomy (derived mainly from the theory of Autopoiesis), in which case we get something like freedom = autonomy, clearly a political position.

 

[bhamgeezer]

I think that theres certainly a link between the free will/ determinism question and the issue of political freedom, but like you say its kind of a roundabout link. I'll try to explain what I mean.

Free will/ determinism is one of the big problems in philosophy of mind, a very real philosophical issue, and very important if you're interested in that stuff (which I am). We certainly experience having free will, but also we have good reasons for thinking that higher-level phenomena reduce ontologically to lower-level phenomena. Which makes our 'freely chosen' decisions ontologically reducible to sets of neurological events. And since these events are physical and therefore either deterministic (think Newtonian Mechanics) or probabilistic (think QM), in what sense are they 'free'?

An added complication is the work of Libet, which appears to demonstrate that there is a physiological event ('readiness potential') which occurs prior to a 'freely chosen' decision, but which is predictive of what the decision will be. Exactly what Libet's work does demonstrate is a continuing source of argument for neuro-psychologists and philosophers.

There are 3 basic responses to this:

1. No, we're not free. Free will is an illusion. Skinner eek:) was a real enthusiast for this view.

2. Mental states aren't reducible to physical states, even ontologically. Free will is therefore possible. This implies some sort of dualism/ idealism, and tends to shade into religion .

3. Compatibilism (my favoured position), which says that free will has nothing to do with ontological reduction in the first place. Rather, when we say that we do something of our own free will, its a way of taking responsibility for the action.

At this point, we start to approach the issue of political freedom. If free will is about responsibility, and freedom is a good thing, then we want to be giving people greater responsibility for their own lives. This is particularly true if (as I would) we link up the compatibilist position to a notion of biological autonomy (derived mainly from the theory of Autopoiesis), in which case we get something like freedom = autonomy, clearly a political position.

So is autopoiesis causally efficacious or not

 

[Jonti]

Free will/ determinism is one of the big problems in philosophy of mind, a very real philosophical issue, and very important if you're interested in that stuff (which I am). We certainly experience having free will, but also we have good reasons for thinking that higher-level phenomena reduce ontologically to lower-level phenomena. Which makes our 'freely chosen' decisions ontologically reducible to sets of neurological events

I think the problem here is that "higher-level phenomena" includes stuff like colour perception. There is a cogent and convincing argument that the perception of a colour, for example, is not ontologically reducible to physical process. However much one knows about the physical process, one can still know nothing at all about what it's like to have colour vision.

We may imagine a very learned neurologist, who knows everything there is to know about the physical lower-level phenomena (or at least the ones we recognise!) that invariably accompany colour vision. Even so, if this neurologist's retinas lacks cone cells, there is one thing they still do not know. And that is what it is actually like to see blue, or red, or any colour.

True, the claim is made that this "perception" business reduces ontologically to the physical correlates. But, however full one's description of those correlates may be, and however complete one's understanding of the physical processes, one cannot from those construct the experience of perception. This being the case, it must be allowed that the proposed ontological reduction is incomplete.