Masters will never know freedom, they will know act because being a Master means society pays for you, morally (sports sense of the word) and cashily. They don’t need freedom.
Unlike masters, freedom considers action only much later. The first consideration is the angleing. What will the action mean? What will it be for? The question is not about the meaning or the reason, but about the discretion to set them.
Freedom is the privilege’s one grants oneself, which varies wisely from person to person. That’s the remedial version.
In actuality it’s an illusion, a fiction to humans. By being human, you are a serf to your nature.
By being more, it’s defiance.
Autonomy. Auto means self, nomos means law. Thus, self-law. Living by your own laws.
In other words, to be autonomous means to act within limits set by the relation between your self and the other.
Because limits are soft, they can be transcended. This opens the way for the opposite phenomenon, that of heteronomy.
Heteronomous people do not want to be themselves (to act within the limits set by self-other relation), but to be someone else (to act outside of the limits set by self-other relation.)
Heteronomy develops when the limits set by the relation between one’s self and the other – one’s degree of freedom – is/are changed. This is what happens when one is enslaved but it is also what happens when one is emancipated.
Slavery reduces one’s freedom, emancipation increases it. Both are stress, thus, both require adequate adaptation.
In the absence of adequate adaptation, heteronomy ensues.
For example, when an aggressive man is tamed, he is challenged to adapt by reducing his drive for aggression. The challenge is created by using external force to increase the limits of what the aggressive man can do without causing harm to himself, in this instance, to increase the limits of how aggressive he can be without causing harm to himself. The drive for aggression is thus turned against him. He can either adapt, by restraining himself, or he can simply continue being his old aggressive self, in which case he will suffer the consequences of self-destruction.
As you can see from this example, self is a dynamic relation with the other. As this relation changes, one has to adapt, to change one’s self, in order to remain heathy. One can insist on being the old self, irrespective of the relation with the other, but that would be self-destructive.
Fundamentally, it has nothing to do with being yourself or being someone else. Both can be a problem. What it has to do with is being realistic in the sense of knowing your limits. Limits are always determined by the relation between the self and the other and never by either of the two alone. Thus terms such as autonomy and heteronomy aren’t exactly adequate, nor are terms such as freedom and slavery.
I would say Freedom is the will to destroy in order to attain a clearly instincted goal. Freedom to ones values.
Democracy is a subtle kind of violence committed by millions of .7 beings. Philosophers are .999 beings, asymptotically approaching being; democratic mass consumers are roughly-beings that rely on each other to continue the feeling of being, which they attain in social company and excitement, or in group efforts like sports, work, war or family feuds.
Then there are .5 beings. These are the unlucky ones, the pawns of fate, with no morality or goal. Then there are the .3 beings which are the fascists. They collectivize under circumstances of great deprivation as an anti-being. They have no values besides their animal ones, but they are far too incomplete to love these values as mammals.
Numbers are insipid metaphor in this case. But its an easy way to make my point and the purple sky makes its demands.
Yes MA - therefore in the latter case one does not self-value. There is no full autonomy, no hermetic “self”. There is consistency in valuing. This is “self-valuing”.
Everyone values choice. Do valuers recognize choices?
You are not interested in finding the right words. Rather, you treat words as if they were names you gave to your children when they were born, thus beyond any kind of criticism.
That is very egoistic. No social hierarchy can be formed that way.
Why valuing?
A more adequate term for the process of choosing how to act based on what is within one’s limits is “realistic self-assertion”.
You want to do what your nature inclines you to do (to assert yourself) but within limits (making sure you do not end up stepping over yourself.)
I suppose when you say “value” you mean “a pattern of behavior that one is inclined to perform”.
What is otherwise known as “instinct”, “impulse” or “drive”.
We have no freedom, we will always be nature’s cast out bound by perception.
First there is no such thing as absolute freedom, i.e. unconditional.
I agree freedom is always conditioned by our human nature, self and the universe.
The issue of freedom [bias and ignorantly] is only critical to the Abrahamic theists who and who God insist the humans created by God has absolute freewill not to believe God and thus warranted to be condemned and tortured in eternal hell.
In general, freedom should always be qualified to the respective condition[s] thus freedom is always conditional.
Thus in this case freedom from serfdom is merely one aspect of freedom that is conditioned to ‘serfdom’ which can be easily explained if we defined what is meant by serfdom.
If serfdom is contractual [explicit or implied], then the termination of such a contract is objectively a freedom from that specified ‘serfdom’.
They hate us for our freedumbs?
Autonomy can only be achieved without government hypocrite.
True, in this case however the discussion is freedom from other people.
Absolute freedom from other people can exist. At one point it did until humanity civilized the fuck out of itself which is just a kinder way of saying enslaved.
Autonomy, in the way that I defined it, means nothing other than being realistic, which means, knowing your limits.
This is something that comes from within, not from without.
You are, unfortunately, a whiny idiot, so you have no sense of the internal. Everything is external for you.
There is no such a thing as absolute freedom.
There is self-other relation. There is you and then there is someone or something else.
This relation cannot be transcended.
No matter how powerful something is, there is always something that is more powerful.
There is always something within your control (decisions that you can make) and something outside of your control (decisions that you cannot make, that are made for you by someone or something else.)
What there is is a degree of freedom. Higher degrees of freedom, which means greater number of decisions under your control, and lower degrees of freedom, which means lower number of decisions under your control.
But there is another, more important, dimension to freedom which is concerned with how realistic one’s sense of freedom is.
This dimension is what autonomy/heteronomy dichotomy that I mentioned on this topic refers to.
Either you know your limits (autonomy) or you don’t (heteronomy.)
You, for example, don’t know your limits. Which is why you’re an anarchist.
The only difference between the past and the present is that in the past limits were set by natural factors whereas nowadays it is generally humans who set them.
Natural consequence of the increase in human population, I would say.
You are anarchist merely because you do not like the fact that there are many people who are superior to you.
You simply do not want to acknowledge their superiority.
Feelings of deep inferiority.
My beef with modern civilization is different than yours in that, whereas you dislike social hierarchies in general, I dislike merely the fact that modern social hierarchies are unrealistic.
Civilizations are fine, indeed, they are desirable.
You want to go back to an era when there were fewer people, thus, less competition and more room for the possibility of you being someone of value.
Very sad.
Magnus you victim, address the points I make instead of curling up and whimpering that it is too difficult and mean.
This is philosophy. Did you think anyone was going to make it easy, especially for Maggie?
I am not curling up and wimpering. You are. I have a feeling that whenever someone criticizes you your head literally explodes and its contents splatter all over the forum in the form of meaningless posts and topics.
The point is that you are not making any points. If there is anything you are saying it’s banal truths made complicated apparently in order to maintain the illusion that you’re some kind of philosopher who will be remembered centuries from now on.