Freedom from the Grip of Witchcraft. Freedom From The Known. From Bondage to Freedom. Freedom from the known. Recommend Documents. The Psychology of Freedom This book presents a new theory of the will - of our capacity for decision-making. The book argues that taking a decisio Rieber, City Un We saw how the ideal of existential freedom as responsibility can be used against itself after the votes for Brexit and Trump, when some commentators suggested—usually half-jokingly, but sometimes in earnest —that voters should have to demonstrate a basic level of knowledge or education before casting their ballots, effectively that they should have to justify their votes to someone else.
Philip Pettit, A Theory of Freedom: From the Psychology to the Politics of Agency - PhilPapers
This is a serious threat to democracy itself. Members of a trade union have certain basic goals in common. They have joined the union to pursue their interests as workers, and it is in those terms that they can be expected to make the case for or against a particular course of action. Wider society is not like that. People have different interests and ideals.
A Theory of Freedom
They cannot be expected to justify themselves in terms that will satisfy everyone. And this is a particular problem since certain social groups have more influence and cachet than others. Their ideas tend to dominate, even when they are not as widely shared as they imagine. In the face of an overwhelming consensus among influential people for settled ways of thinking or doing things—a phenomenon J.
That is the crucial test, the real meaning of responsibility. This more muted form of existential freedom is even more important in the private sphere. At some point, the woman sits down with her date and the man she is with takes her hand in his. So she faces a dilemma. So what does she do? She lets her hand sit inert in his, while she ponders the situation.
For many, if not most, people, ambiguity plays an important role in sexual relationships, especially in the early stages. It is an appealing idea that someone is always either sexually interested in someone else or not, and that a healthy sexual encounter will always involve two people equally enamored of one another and equally unafraid to say so. They might prefer to retain plausible deniability. But, according to the enthusiastic consent model, anything less is a form of coercion and people are encouraged to reinterpret occasions on which they perhaps surprised themselves as incidents for which they were not responsible at all.
Crucially, this is not simply a question of individual bad faith, but of increasingly institutionalized bad faith. The most egregious example is the insistence in some campus codes that anyone under the influence of alcohol is incapable of consenting to sex. This comes from an understandable attempt to develop an objective standard of competence, but it is woefully out of step with reality. Someone who confides in a friend that they slept with someone they wish they had not might now be told that, if alcohol was involved, it was by definition rape.
And if they accept this, the consequences could be disastrous for all concerned.
- Freedom, choice, and the sense of agency.
- J. B. BURY, M.A., F.B.A.
After all, you did the doing, not someone else. And, even when we do make a conscious decision, how far back do we have to trace the reasoning behind that decision before we will accept it as our own and not simply as a whim that could have gone either way?
Ultimately, the decisions we really feel are our own are those that could not have gone any other way. As Sartre put it in Existentialism is a Humanism :. I may wish to join a party, to write a book or marry—but in such a case what is usually called my will is probably a manifestation of a prior and more spontaneous decision.
If however it is true that existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he is. In other words, we are responsible for what we have made of ourselves. If we are lazy, cowardly or compulsive, it is not ultimately because of our genes or our upbringing—even if those things have put as at a disadvantage—but because we have trained ourselves to be that way. Of course, if it is to be meaningful, existential freedom must include the ability to escape even ourselves, to change our ways.
The point is that we can only do that by acknowledging our freedom, the fact that we are always making choices, even when we choose not to change. If we make ourselves by making choices that are shaped by who we have already made ourselves, do we really have a choice?
Because we contain multitudes. The crucial decision is which parts of ourselves we choose to accept as definitive, and which we choose to shed or ignore. It will often seem to others, and even to ourselves, that our choices reveal rather than make our true selves, but the point is that at the moment of choosing, we cannot defer to an objective, essential self.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
Made with Words. The Birth of Ethics. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology. The Robust Demands of the Good.