POLITICAL AND PERSONAL FREEDOM:
= (something like) being in a political, social, economic situation in which people, both individuals and communities, have the effective capacity to positively determine their own destiny in the directions in which they want to do so??
PERSONAL FREEDOM: freedom of the will, free choice:
- two main theories
1) freedom is being able to do what one wants;
2) freedom is where you could have done otherwise.
THEORY ONE: FREEDOM AS BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT ONE WANTS
1) ABSENCE OF EXTERNAL CONSTRAINT: being able to do what one wants.
- but what if someone else is determining the wants??
2) DETERMINATION OF ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONE'S OWN TRUE WANTS: being able to do what one wants.
= self-determination type 1. Not yet inconsistent with determinism.
A POSSIBILITY OF DISTINGUISHING LEVELS OF WANTS:
but no radical self-determination of the Super-Wants, the innermost self.
FUNDAMENTAL OPTION THEORY
3) RADICAL CAPACITY TO DETERMINE WHAT I WANT: even to determine the innermost self - radical self-creation
= self-determination type 2: radical self-determination, in the sense of determination of self.
= a variety of indeterminism.
but perhaps this is too strong: so perhaps
4) LIMITED, CONTEXTUALIZED CAPACITY FOR SELF-CREATION/ DETERMINING WHAT I WANT:
:creating oneself slowly as a work of art via a more or less creative responding and operating with the way we are given, with some capacity even to touch the deepest level.
Working in limited horizons determined by language, culture, religious and ethical upbringing, one's own past, relationships etc.
HOW IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH DIVINE CREATIVITY?
- God sets us free: not divine versus human.
- but who decides??
Aquinas/Maritain solution; Whitehead/Hartshorne solution.
1) IF THINGS WERE DIFFERENT?
2) IF ONE WAS DIFFERENT?
3) IN SPITE OF THINGS BEING THE SAME AND EVEN WITH ME AS THE SAME
Possibility 3) admits of two further possibilities:
(a) it was equal: 'freedom of indifference'
- but this is rare; it ignores the influence of motives; if frequent it would make human action entirely unpredictable and would make morality impossible.
(b) it was not equal, but s/he still could have gone the other way.
"could have chosen the other way" meaning:
(i) if things were different?
(ii) had s/he been different?
(iii) had the other motive been the stronger??
These all have their problems.
QUESTION: do we always choose the stronger motive?
FURTHER QUESTION: WHY WAS ONE MOTIVE STRONGER THAN THE OTHER?
ONLY ANSWER THAT STILL PRESERVES FREEDOM: BECAUSE S/HE MADE IT STRONGER.
HOW? BY TRANSFER OF ATTENTION (AQUINAS)
THE BASIS FOR TRANSFER OF ATTENTION? THE NATURAL DESIRE FOR THE VISION OF GOD.
THE PROBLEM OF ADDICTIONS
(some) ADDICTIONS AS IDOLS, THE IDOLS OF DEATH AND THE GOD OF LIFE AND FREEDOM.
FREEDOM, eventually, = GETTING SET FREE FROM IDOLS.