Historic Quotations Post II:

[underlankers]

In terms of a defense of democracy and its virtues, I can think of no greater summation than the Four Freedoms speech made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in January of 1941:

Comments

[oslo]

I get that, but the usage is almost Orwellian in nature.

Again, you're not really seriously entertaining the possibility that you're wrong about what "freedom" is. Because you're not willing to suspend that initial, intuitive assumption, any attempt to think about what people actually say and feel and do about "freedom" apart from that assumption reads as "Orwellian" to you. If they feel differently than you do about what "freedom" is, they're just wrong, and they're deluding themselves - this is all the explanation you seem to feel compelled to offer for their accounts.

But the view of freedom I've described is not "Orwellian." Indeed, it accepts as initially plausible your account. I'm not saying that the lack of freedom is itself freedom, for example.

Actually, we can see quite clearly what I mean if we consider two societies, both equally "free" on your account, but differently "free" in the sense that the people in one society enjoy a more thriving economy, more material wealth, etc., so that more of them are actually able to do more of what they're "free" (on your account) to do. Your view sees no distinction between the two societies, in terms of "freedom." But I quite simply look at what it's like to live in a thriving market economy with a fair amount of wealth and observe that the people there have more leisure, less stress, more comfort, etc. Why is it wrong to describe their lived experience as enjoying greater "freedom," apart from the simple assumption that it is? What enables your initial assumption about what freedom is to trump their lived experience and how they would naturally describe it?

Basically, you have two options. Either you can acknowledge that "freedom" is a more nuanced, complex concept than you've so far allowed; or you have to acknowledge that your notion of "freedom" is so narrowly construed that it's not evident why anyone ought to favor it over other kinds of values (denied the label of "freedom") that make their lives worth living.

[oslo]

Or, conversely, I have entertained it and found it wanting.

Do you mean anything by these kinds of responses besides, "I'm right, you're wrong, nanner-nanner?" Anyway, found what wanting?

In any discussion such as this, we can't hope to engage in a meaningful exchange unless we can achieve a kind of analytical distance from what we ourselves believe to be the case. This is precisely what you haven't done, when considering my statements about what the experience of "freedom" is like. As I schematically demonstrated, above, your analysis of my statements already assumes that your conclusion about what "freedom" is is itself correct. As such, it's no surprise when you come out the other side finding my account "wanting." This is what I mean when I say you're not "seriously entertaining" any alternative; you've already assumed I'm wrong, if I disagree with you.

As for other possible accounts - not presented by me - I simply have no basis for believing you've done the analytical work you're apparently claiming to have done.

Except you are doing exactly so. Your initial comment noted that "it's not wrong to say that not "wanting" is freeing." The argument is exactly that - if you have, for example, all your food provided for you, but it's nothing more than a vitamin rich gruel with nothing else to offer, it's not freeing. It's not freedom. It's a reduction of freedom alongside something being provided.

I don't know why you have to hoist a whole dystopian vision upon a simple observation that being able to go to whatever grocery store I like and to buy whatever I want there feels "freer" than being forced to deliberate more carefully on such matters. You want to categorically cast that pleasant experience as something other than "freedom," which is fine so long as we're clear about our usage - which you are not - but personally I find it completely natural and intuitive to describe the less deliberate connection between will and action that I experience due to my financial health as "freeing," if not actually "freedom."

It couldn't possibly be that I'm actually correct, though.

Petty and unresponsive.

What I am trying to do, with your notion of "freedom," is understand it analytically. You have said, "Freedom is just having lots of options." Okay. But lots of people mean something else by the word "freedom." You say they're wrong to call what they're talking about "freedom." Okay. If you're right about that, then we can ask: why should we care about your "freedom" as distinct from what they mean when they're describing "freedom"? Nothing about the way you've defined "freedom" compels a normative conclusion about it or the preference it seems to carry, for you. Alternatively, we can take the case for "freedom" as basically granted, because everyone agrees that they'd prefer to have more freedom rather than less. But this requires acknowledging that people mean something more than a "multiplicity of theoretically-available options" when they speak of "freedom." If we acknowledge this, then we have to notice that the way you've defined "freedom" doesn't comport with the common usage, in which case we need to revise your notion and come to a fuller understanding.

Nothing about the text you're responding to here requires asserting that you're actually incorrect. It requires, rather, acknowledging that your notion is critically underdeveloped, which it is.

[oslo]

Given that the idea that I could be correct, or that I have looked at the situation and come to a conclusion, doesn't seem to come up...

It doesn't come up because you haven't ventured to defend your views save in the most conclusory fashion. I'd much rather prefer to address the argument you're holding in reserve, but I can't do that if all you say is, "Well, maybe one reason that I don't accept your account is that you're wrong..."

In that I have examined, and come to a conclusion? Accurate. In that I've "already assumed you're wrong?" No. You've made an argument, one that doesn't match up with what's understood. You don't like the answer, so we're back to armchair psychology.

This particular comment relates to a schematic of an argument that appears to be implicit in the way you've read and responded to a remark I've made upthread. I think it would be more productive to address the accuracy of that schematic rather than to accuse me here of engaging in "armchair psychology." There's really nothing here that qualifies as anything other than rational disputation.

Or, conversely, that I'm correct and that the idea of "freedom" you speak of is not freedom at all, but is something that some consider freedom even as it creates further contraints upon the person in question.

In that case, you're stuck on the first horn: you need to explain why your notion of freedom as a "multiplicity of theoretically available options" is preferable to this "something that some consider freedom." As a bonus, it might be helpful to explain why people seem so frequently to be mistaken about what it means to be free.

There may be benefits to limiting freedoms - that it's given as acceptable that reducing choice is okay, however, is where the problems ultimately lie. But, seeing how my notion is "critically undeveloped," what do I know, right?

So when is it "okay" to "reduce choice?" Never? Sometimes? If sometimes, when? If never, why not?

When and why is "greater choice" to be preferred to what I've called "practical freedom?" Always, just because? Always, because "practical freedom" is a non-entity? (If it's a non-entity, why isn't it worth countenance?) Usually, because it results in greater "practical freedom?" Typically, but only if it increases rather than decreases "practical freedom?"

The fact that I don't know, from your comments, how you'd respond to the above questions except to suppose that you'd take a maximization of choice and theoretically available options - "freedom," on your account - to be intrinsically superior to any alternative despite its benefits, and that you'd further take this position to be intuitively obvious and not amenable to rational defense - this underlies my assertion that your notion is "critically undeveloped." It can't seem to answer the most basic questions presented to it, and you don't seem to be doing anything here to demonstrate otherwise.