5 ms·

I took a philosophy class on "freedom" in college. The entire semester on the word and simply trying to define it. And I had a few takeaways. My main takeaway i

I took a philosophy class on "freedom" in college. The entire semester on the word and simply trying to define it. And I had a few takeaways. My main takeaway is that no one has been able define freedom successfully, or even come close. Second, anyone who simplistically uses the word to forward their agenda is not qualified to use the word (Musk, "free speech" advocates, American nationalists). Lastly, I hate philosophy because I spent an entire semester reading and studying and still have no answer to what freedom really means.

evronm 4y ago
>Lastly, I hate philosophy because I spent an entire semester reading and studying and still have no answer to what freedom really means. "Computers are useless. They only give answers." - Pablo Picasso I think you missed the point of philosophy. It's pretty much all about pondering questions you can't answer. Once you manage to answer them, you're not doing philosophy any more but have moved into the realm of science.
- twiceaday 4y ago
  Thing is, seems like a lot of those questions are not answerable simply because they use ill defined terms. Can those terms be well defined? If not, what good is the question beyond confusing humans with a surface reading? If yes, then very likely the mystery of the question vanishes.
  - majormajor 4y ago
    If you were to say "hey, we should all fight for foobardom, a new term I just made up" but didn't give a good definition for then, yes, you'd have a problem: talking about foobardom would be pointless since it's an ill-defined term and the discussion would serve no purpose. However, this discussion about philosophy and freedom is the reverse: people are already fighting and in many cases dying for what they think is this thing called 'freedom', and yet it proves elusive to find a definition. The real-world, societal impact is already there. So it's worth studying. And if you study it and find that it's elusive and nearly impossible to pin down... well now that's interesting, and should make you think critically about anyone who uses the term as a low-nuance bludgeon in an argument. (In the other article around Twitter here today - this thread - https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1586955288061452289 https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1586955288061452289 , I think this point is made pretty clear early on by the spam example: perfectly legal, yet "bots" are a self-professed problem for pro-whatever-speech-is-legal,don't-get-involved-further Musk...)
  - awb 4y ago
    > because they use ill defined terms All definitions are ill-defined if you're willing to question the words in the definition. Maybe the point of philosophy is to uncover the weaknesses in our understanding of the word, rather than gain confidence in understanding it. So, asking "am I free?" helps me uncover my assumptions about the world and find out exactly how many levels deep I'm willing to go before I trust that the words in the definition are true.
- smk_ 4y ago
  Philosophy is the constantly moving (and narrowing) circle of unanswered questions.
epgui 4y ago
> Lastly, I hate philosophy because I spent an entire semester reading and studying and still have no answer to what freedom really means. Sounds to me like the outcome was pretty positive, you came out the other end way smarter than most.
BurningFrog 4y ago
Defining what a word means is linguistics, not philosophy.
- GaylordTuring 4y ago
  Why are you booing him? He’s right.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    Linguists don't define what a word means, the people who use it do. Ethnographers record the definition that a word is used for, and dictionary editors compile those records.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      Even then, dictionary definitions are circular, which is where philosophers like to come in and confuse themselves while patting each other on the back.
skissane 4y ago
> My main takeaway is that no one has been able define freedom successfully “Freedom” is always “freedom to X”. The real debate is about the X, not how to define the word “freedom” itself, which is comparatively trivial, and doesn’t have much bearing on the X part.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

evronm 4y ago

>Lastly, I hate philosophy because I spent an entire semester reading and studying and still have no answer to what freedom really means. "Computers are useless. They only give answers." - Pablo Picasso I think you missed the point of philosophy. It's pretty much all about pondering questions you can't answer. Once you manage to answer them, you're not doing philosophy any more but have moved into the realm of science.

twiceaday 4y ago
Thing is, seems like a lot of those questions are not answerable simply because they use ill defined terms. Can those terms be well defined? If not, what good is the question beyond confusing humans with a surface reading? If yes, then very likely the mystery of the question vanishes.
- majormajor 4y ago
  If you were to say "hey, we should all fight for foobardom, a new term I just made up" but didn't give a good definition for then, yes, you'd have a problem: talking about foobardom would be pointless since it's an ill-defined term and the discussion would serve no purpose. However, this discussion about philosophy and freedom is the reverse: people are already fighting and in many cases dying for what they think is this thing called 'freedom', and yet it proves elusive to find a definition. The real-world, societal impact is already there. So it's worth studying. And if you study it and find that it's elusive and nearly impossible to pin down... well now that's interesting, and should make you think critically about anyone who uses the term as a low-nuance bludgeon in an argument. (In the other article around Twitter here today - this thread - https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1586955288061452289 https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1586955288061452289 , I think this point is made pretty clear early on by the spam example: perfectly legal, yet "bots" are a self-professed problem for pro-whatever-speech-is-legal,don't-get-involved-further Musk...)
- awb 4y ago
  > because they use ill defined terms All definitions are ill-defined if you're willing to question the words in the definition. Maybe the point of philosophy is to uncover the weaknesses in our understanding of the word, rather than gain confidence in understanding it. So, asking "am I free?" helps me uncover my assumptions about the world and find out exactly how many levels deep I'm willing to go before I trust that the words in the definition are true.
smk_ 4y ago
Philosophy is the constantly moving (and narrowing) circle of unanswered questions.

epgui 4y ago

> Lastly, I hate philosophy because I spent an entire semester reading and studying and still have no answer to what freedom really means. Sounds to me like the outcome was pretty positive, you came out the other end way smarter than most.

BurningFrog 4y ago

Defining what a word means is linguistics, not philosophy.

GaylordTuring 4y ago
Why are you booing him? He’s right.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  Linguists don't define what a word means, the people who use it do. Ethnographers record the definition that a word is used for, and dictionary editors compile those records.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    Even then, dictionary definitions are circular, which is where philosophers like to come in and confuse themselves while patting each other on the back.

skissane 4y ago

> My main takeaway is that no one has been able define freedom successfully “Freedom” is always “freedom to X”. The real debate is about the X, not how to define the word “freedom” itself, which is comparatively trivial, and doesn’t have much bearing on the X part.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]