Is freedom dead?
Among the intelligentsia there is this growing consensus that freedom is not a logically justifiable concept. It boils down to whether there is any kind of disconnect between cause and effect, or if reality is nothing but perfectly strict consequentialist determinism. Will the new dominant orthodoxy totally "kill" freedom?
Yes. Sorry to say
Side Score: 4
|
 |
No. No way
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
Cause and effect connects all of our perceived reality. It is real and active in our universe. Freedom is so many things that I'm not sure what your saying is dead. Literal freedom is thought to be the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. I'm going to guess that your topic is about literal freedom's implication that there is truly a literal freedom of choice. IMHO cause and effect operates even within our decisions. In the strictest sense freedom of choice does not exist, but rather choices are created by cause and effect operating within our minds, rather than being arbitrary or random. Thus freedom is not so much dead as it is an illusion in the first place. Side: No. No way
It doesn't matter WHAT kind of freedom one might be talking about. If the core concept is an illusion then all types of freedom are also illusions. By dead I was referring to the conceptual implosion. I guess I could have written the debate description better to explain.... Are you sure your argument is on the right side? You do agree that freedom is an illusion, but you don't like the phrase freedom is dead? Side: Yes. Sorry to say
It doesn't matter WHAT kind of freedom one might be talking about. If the core concept is an illusion then all types of freedom are also illusions. If you are being incarcerated for the rest of your life, you have literally lost the freedom to come and go. The illusion that you have made some choice, independent of all your experiences and beliefs is NOT the same as the absence of freedom. Sorry, I'm unable to say this with any more clarity. By dead I was referring to the conceptual implosion. OK I understand. Are you sure your argument is on the right side? You do agree that freedom is an illusion, but you don't like the phrase freedom is dead In the context of explaining why so called "freedom of choice" is an illusion, I said. Thus freedom is not so much dead as it is an illusion in the first place. To refer to freedom of choice as dead, implies that it was at some time alive. The concept was Never valid. Side: No. No way
|
