What is freedom?

It's a damn good paper is what it is

something like species-being (ie some sort of ethically normative 'way humans are', perhaps with some sort of psychoanalytic account of 'free play' etc to substantiate (instantiate?) it) is pretty much necessary, I would have thought.

the notion of liberty as handed down is pretty one-sided and I'm not sure it can be salvaged except on such a basis.

When I sat political philosophy in the second year, we were told that all the philosopher's were concerned with freedom - that Machaivelli to Locke to Marx etc. It may have been hinted that Issaih Berlin's positive/negative freedom was solid.

It could be said to be opposed to restrictions?

Freedom means nothing in the context of slavery, since to a slave, freedom means nothing except the shattering of his chains.

Or perhaps thats just pretentious commie garbage in order to dodge the question and not define something that borders on being an abstract concept. Still works for me.

Yeah, thas what the phiosophy of freedom boils down to - human rights? How are these to be decided: freedom from coercion, a osical contract?

Not sure how Marxism?Anarchism would fit into this though - other than it is less individualistic and involves control over material resources to enable choice.

Under heirachy you cannot "freely associate"?
Heirachy interfers with natural development, so that we cannot mould the environment to maximize our freedom?
From Guerin/Roker.

what is inherently interesting/useful about 'freedom'? Why this desire to appropriate the liberal rhetoric of 'rights' (always granted by a hegemonic state-entity in any case)?

So important to remember Nietzsche here. What use does the ubermensch, the overcomer, have for 'freedom'? Freedom, rights &c are locked into a slave mentality which will be eliminated in the progress of the real movement. A free worker remains a worker, a politically liberated christian remains a christian.

IMHO, a good essay on freedom will start with the outline definition, offered by Gerald MacCallum, of freedom as a triadic relation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty#Freedom_as_a_Triadic_Relation

It should be obvious from this that any particular instance of freedom, or its exercise, isn't necessarily a good thing. In what sort of society is freedom maximised - i.e. in what sort of society does one person's freedom not impinge on another's? Clearly: in the society in which people tend to will simmilarly, by definition, a solidaristic society. (Solidarity, defn: unity of interests and aspirations.)

Whereupon you bring in Philip Pettit's republican liberty, and other communitarian accounts. For freedom to be broadly distributed necessarily involves, you say, political organisation, and mass involvement.

This probably not very coherent, too much whisky, going to bed.

just another word for 'nothing left to loose'

I've not much time before bed myself so I will cheat and do some quoting. Freedom is a pretty incoherent and useless concept unless we have principles worked out to aid us for when freedoms conflict. Which freedoms are more important than others? Is the freedom to employ wage-labour as important as the freedom for each citizen to exercise their own labouring capacities in just relations with others?

Robin Hahnel has some good critiques of the notions of freedom used by Nozick, as well as Milton Freedom and Amartya Sen. He thinks we should jettison the term freedom for self-management, which does give us a principle for determining what to do when freedoms conflict and which anchors the notion of freedom in the development of capabilities.

"But why is self-management a good thing? Throughout history most humans have lived in circumstances with few opportunities for economic self-management. So admittedly, most people don't die without it. Political economists contend that just as denial of material means of subsistence conflicts with human "natural" needs for food, shelter, and clothing, denial of self-management opportunities is in conflict with our "species nature." The capacity to analyze and evaluate the consequences of our actions, and choose among alternatives based on our assessments, in conjunction with the need to employ this capacity, is what we call "consciousness." Development of the capacity and desire for self-management is nothing more than development of the capacity to garner satisfaction from this innate human potential. For that reason, economic institutions that satisfy this need and develop this capacity are prefereable to economic institutions that stifle self-management. In brief, we human beings have the ability to analyze and evaluate the consequences of economic actions and choose accordingly, and we garner considerable satisfaction from doing so!" (Hahnel, Robin. The ABC's of Political Economy)

gordonL: "Robin Hahnel has some good critiques of the notions of freedom used by Nozick, as well as Milton Freedom and Amartya Sen. He thinks we should jettison the term freedom for self-management"

I'm with Robin on this. Self-management is a reasonable understanding of positive freedom, the freedom of self-determination, controlling your own life. The best discussion that Hahnel has on self-management, I think, is in his more academic work, "The Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics," where he talks about self-management as a human need.

Positive freedom differs from negative freedom, the freedom defined in terms of lack of restraint by institutions like the state. This is the conception of freedom appealed to by the right, and by neo-classical economists.

t.

the ability to do nothing

ooh, I've come over all taoist

The right-wing conception of freedom is more or less the "absence of external interference", and the "freedom to choose". Very individualist, very anti-social. Basically, "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone".

The left-wing conception of freedom can be best described as "freedom of creativity" and "self-management"; lots of leisure time, being able to contribute to decision making, having a decent standard of living and so on. In other words, leftists are in favor of positive freedom, rather than the absence of external constraints. Leftists acknowledge that people should do well to respect the norms of their community, and follow them, unless there is a good reason not to.

http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/free.htm

What is freedom and what is the meaning of freedom?
I read somewhere that long ago philosophers believed that if ideas could be defined accurately, rather like labelling flowers in a garden, then it would alleviate misunderstandings during discussion. This I believe is now seen as a utopian idea based on the false assumption that it was possible to ‘fix’ a meaning to a word.

The meaning of a word is now seen, I think, as subject to the context in which it is used, as in “That’s cool,” “That’s wicked,” etc. Any misunderstandings being best avoided by asking the user to explain (define) their usage.

Mzwakeh Mbuli in his brilliant song ‘Freedom Puzzle’ shows that the abstract idea of freedom can have (contain) many meanings:

To the bosses and farmers, the meaning is different
To the rich and poor, the meaning is different
To the homeless, jobless, miners and workers, the meaning is different
What is freedom? And what is the meaning of freedom?

I tend to think all abstract ideas are like large ‘envelops’ in which there may be many meanings. The best way to demonstrate (your) meaning is by writing and speaking as clearly and simply as the subject allows.