Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

contractualist OP t1_ix0rws4 wrote

Summary: There are two types of freedom: actual freedom and conscious freedom. Actual freedom is the perception of being free and having choices. This type of freedom determines the limits of our free will and moral responsibility. Conscious freedom is acting in accordance with our higher-order principles. This consciously free state creates and consents to the social contract since the social contract represents our higher-order principles of freedom and reason expressed through universal principles.

42

ecksate t1_ix1akme wrote

Sounds much better than "negative freedom" when you put it that way.

7

TheSicilianDefense t1_ix2q0hn wrote

Neither of these is negative freedom, though. They’re both positive freedom concepts lol

6

ecksate t1_ix3djoy wrote

To me it describes willingly conforming to negative freedom. The freedom where you only act within a set of constraining social norms telling you what not to do. It's just explained from a different angle. It's literally though shalt not because of social norms, except you're sooo happy and consciously free because you're not exhibiting full positive freedom beyond social norms.

−2

trlong t1_ix1gqpt wrote

Or the illusion of freedom.

3

contractualist OP t1_ix46ny3 wrote

I discuss my views on free will here. Free will exists as a phenological experience and it shapes the boundaries of our moral universe. If free will is an illusion, then everything must be an illusion. So long as we can say our perceptions of the world exist, free will exists.

If you have any criticisms, I'd be happy to hear them and address them in future posts.

0

jfdiller t1_ix73h9j wrote

You mean phenomenological experience?

2

WhittlingDan t1_ix20ufh wrote

Can you eli5?

1

Clementea t1_ix3j7dm wrote

From what I understand, which I could be wrong; the writer makes 2 differentiation between Freedom

Actual Freedom which is the definition of Freedom: Do whatever you want.

And Conscious Freedom: A "Freedom" to choose to limit yourself so you don't do what society consider as bad. Such as society/law telling us Murder is bad and we shouldn't do it. And we have the "Freedom" to agree to it and practice it; that is, not committing murder.

Feels like unnecessary to make them different tbh. But that is my personal opinion.

4

Dangerousrhymes t1_ix3lw65 wrote

Philosophy thrives on unnecessary distinctions based on customized definitions of concepts.

7

Clementea t1_ix3ot0r wrote

True too. Though I feel in this particular scenario it's...Really unnecessary.

2

TonyR600 t1_ix3nqba wrote

Please correct me if I'm wrong but for me it sound like actual freedom in political terms would be anarchy and the other one is the freedom we produced by having a state with laws.

So the former is more like a concept that has never been achieved (I imagine even in early nomad like human groups there were some rules that could make you enemy of the group while breaking)

2

helpmemakeausername1 t1_ix3qgu3 wrote

Not OP but I agree with you, just want to nitpick a bit - anarchy isn't absence of rules, it's the absence of state. Early nomads were quite possibly anarchic so you're right.

Absolute freedom is a wild concept, even if it's a construct that can never see fruition. Because our actions don't exist in a vacuum and therefore we're restrained by the consequences. I think Sartre says something along those lines?

3

Clementea t1_ix3oo86 wrote

Unfortunately, since you are replying for my comment about the summary of OP's writing.

This reply better off be sent towards OP instead of me. I am not the one making this philosophical take, the OP did.

Theres some I agree and some I don't.

1

WhittlingDan t1_ix3zog6 wrote

Anarchy in a political sense does not mean no laws. It means no vertical hierarchy however people would still be in leadership/managerial positions chosen and rotated and without absolute authority.

1

contractualist OP t1_ix4o113 wrote

Our actually free selves wouldn't create our moral rules, its only a descriptive fact that we experience free will (and this is what we mean when we talk about free will) and its this experience that gives us moral responsibility. It's freedom in the broad sense.

Our consciously free selves is the self that acts in accordance with its higher order principles by reflecting on itself and its actions (or philosophical autonomy). And its this free self that creates our moral rules.

So actual freedom is just possessing free will and conscious freedom is acting in accordance with principles and consequently, the ability to create moral laws.

I'll be discussing these ideas more in future posts if you are interested, but let me know if you'd like me to clarify anything or if there's something I should talk about going forward.

1

VitriolicViolet t1_ix5ggz7 wrote

eh, more like the US vs China.

in the US one has freedom to do pretty much whatever (obviously within some bounds) ie you can become rich enough to dismantle society itself and you are 'free' to do so (Jeff Bezos, Musk, Gates etc ie positive freedom: freedom from external interference).

in China one is free to do whatever they want within the context of larger society ie you can become rich but not enough to dismantle society itself (Jack Ma being punished for doing what Gates and Bezos did: vertical integration to the point of being able to effectively blackmail the nation ie negative freedom).

there is no absolute freedom or even a framework for it (even Anarchy has rules just no centralised authority) outside nature.

1

contractualist OP t1_ix4nepl wrote

Actual freedom is a descriptive fact. It's only the experience of free will (what we mean by free will), or our actual selves. While actual freedom sets the boundaries of our moral community (members must be free and moral rules are limited to those we can freely obey) our actual free selves aren't parties to the social contract.

Conscious freedom (or as philosophers may call it, autonomy) is acting in accordance with our higher order principles. For social contract purposes, this means that our conscious selves would create universal moral rules based on the principles of freedom and reason. Our consciously free selves create and consent to the social contract.

−1

Clementea t1_ix4wvrx wrote

> It's only the experience of free will (what we mean by free will)

Ugh...Why are you saying what's inside the () as the same thing as you previously said?

> While actual freedom sets the boundaries of our moral community (members must be free and moral rules are limited to those we can freely obey)

What does that even mean? How does freedom sets boundaries of moral community? And how does what is inside the bracket even explains it? Yes Moral Rules are limited to those we can freely obey, even if that is not always the case. But how does it sets boundaries of moral community, how does freedom sets it.

You have the freedom to set boundaries, doesn't mean freedom itself sets it. How does that make sense?

> Conscious freedom (or as philosophers may call it, autonomy) is acting in accordance with our higher order principles. For social contract purposes, this means that our conscious selves would create universal moral rules based on the principles of freedom and reason. Our consciously free selves create and consent to the social contract.

Hence our conscious selves creates boundaries...Which we have the freedom to create.

I am not saying you can't differentiate them, it's just seemingly pointless to do so. And what you said here doesn't seems to actually support your point from my view.

1

contractualist OP t1_ix7ynr8 wrote

>the experience of free will (what we mean by free will)

This is controversial to some. Yet what I argue what we mean when we say free will is our phenomenological experience of free will, rather than an objective free will. This is why I separate the two.

And whether a being is free determines whether they are a member of a moral community, bound to moral law. I discuss it here. This is what I mean by freedom setting the boundaries.

1

contractualist OP t1_ix47fwu wrote

Actual freedom: the sensation/experience of freedom. Its what we mean when we say free will

Conscious freedom: acting so as to live up to our higher-order principles. We are free from the constraints that prevent us from acting according to our ideals. This is obeying the law that we ourselves would legislate (a Kantian idea of freedom).

These definitions are internal, rather than external, like liberty.

These definitions are useful since I've read the term "freedom" being used in both meanings, which is confusing.

However, let me know if you have any criticisms. I'd be happy to respond.

1

frogandbanjo t1_ix3o8u4 wrote

"Actual is... the perception of..."

Red flag.

1

contractualist OP t1_ix3sak4 wrote

I discuss my views on free will here. Like all of our inductive knowledge, free will exists as perception and experience. This is what I mean by actual freedom. And its this freedom that sets the boundaries of our moral universe (who are the members of the moral community and what ethical rules can be created).

1

VitriolicViolet t1_ix5fqm9 wrote

kinda just seems like positive v negative freedom.

only difference is semantics over 'choosing' to follow social norms.

1

contractualist OP t1_ix5qpyt wrote

Positive and negative freedom describe relationships with others. These concepts are internal.

1