I’d never thought about it before, but quantifying freedom by the number of available possibilities makes perfect sense. It’s kind of similar to the idea of ‘degrees of freedom’ in maths and physics. It explains why the right’s view of freedom, which is entirely theoretical, doesn’t make sense - you’re ‘free’ to buy a super yacht only in the sense that there’s no person preventing you from doing so, but it’s not an actual possibility for most people.
You should check out, if you haven't already, the mirror Zoe posted awhile back of Raymond Geuss discussing the problem with the positive/negative rights framework. I believe it's embedded in a discussion on free speech or campus protests.
@@JebeckyGranjola It has nothing to do with is/ought. The only ought here is that we ought to maximise freedom for everyone, which is a value in and of itself, not derived from any ‘is’. I don’t think it’s immoral to buy a yacht, I’m saying some people have the real possibility of buying a yacht, and others do not. The people for whom buying a yacht is not a realistic possibility, do not in any meaningful sense have the freedom to do so. It is the society that has created the conditions where yachts are the purview of only a few that is immoral, not the act of purchasing one. A definition of freedom which says I have an equal level of freedom as a person who controls vastly more resources, is not a good definition. I don’t see how utility comes into it either. I think you’re very wrong in your assessment that utility, an abstract notion of happiness or satisfaction, is the same thing as what is being discussed here, which is the number of options available to a person. I’d caution you against using words like ‘lazy’ when you’re clearly way off base on what’s even being argued.
@@JebeckyGranjola No, you’re not getting it. You’re just trying to cram it into a box you already know, and then complain that it doesn’t fit. If anything it can be derived from a Kant-esque deontological position that everyone is equally entitled to be treated as ends in themselves, with their own desires and agency, worthy of dignity. Maximising freedom - for each and every individual, not in aggregate, which alone distinguishes it from utilitarianism - is the means of ensuring that agency.
@@JebeckyGranjola I still don't really understand what you're getting at. Perhaps the misunderstanding is that I'm not actually trying to give a justification for maximising freedom, I'm trying to contrast two different ways of thinking about or measuring freedom.
@@badger1296 my bad but i think you'll find it's "One is not free *untill* everyone is is free" (not trying to make fun of ste kra, everyone has bad spelling/grammar online)
this actually encapsulates all three core tenets: freedom, equality, and solidarity. everyone is equally free, and we support the freedom of everyone else
Your work here is always so thorough and well-organized. Looking forward to getting a copy of your book. Wish I could pre-order today, but I will soon. Officially on my reading list.
Your videos are amazing and I am so glad to finally have your book (ordered both as epub and physical)! Already using it in my Research MA thesis on agape (unconditional & universal love) and anarchism💚
Very interesting video! The division in freedom equality and solidarity reminds me of Erik Olin's theory of anti-capitalism, taking the struggle battlefronts as continuations of the enlightenment project of "freedom, equality, and fraternity".
I hope to read your book! It's so difficult for me to find this information organically because of the algorithm (mine leans conservative & capitalist, unfortunately) so I have to intentionally search for creators/authors who fairly represent views outside my bubble. Anyway, I'm curious how the anarchist worldview treats the reality of those in society who are limited in agency such as the physically or mentally disadvantaged (forgive me if that's the wrong word), infants, terminally ill, and those who care for them.
I hope that if your book has one of those chunks in the middle which is filled with pictures that those pictures are just various memes featuring anarchist thinkers and actors.
So you're quoting Bakunin. Didn't you tell us he was a racist and conspiracy theorist and by implication a crank who should be dismissed? Frankly I'd rather dismiss YOU as a crank.
I seem to recall that Zoe actually said that he was vocally and nastily antisemitic, and therefore we should examine his ideas very carefully before accepting only the ones we find sound. But if you want to be a crank instead, you do you.
@@finalcut612 Yes? "He" in that sentence refers only to Mikhail Bakunin, who was (to my knowledge) a man and used male pronouns. To expand: "Zoe (she) said that he (Bakunin) was antisemitic, and therefore we should examine his (Bakunin's) ideas carefully."
note that freedom equality and solidarity (worded fraternity because of sexism) are the official values of france, so my conclusion is france was an anarchist contry from the beggining 😁
Ms. Zoe, I am proud of you and I am proud of your supporters. Although I do not idolize you, I believe that you are a force for good in this world and any support that is given to you is a means of amplifying that good into the world! Again, I am very proud of you AND what you do! 🦚🏳️⚧️🦚
"No real social change has ever been brought about without a revolution... revolution is but thought carried into action." ~ Emma Goldman
Lol then the Marxists say "Anarchists ignore the actual organization and material conditions necessary for revolution"
I’d never thought about it before, but quantifying freedom by the number of available possibilities makes perfect sense. It’s kind of similar to the idea of ‘degrees of freedom’ in maths and physics.
It explains why the right’s view of freedom, which is entirely theoretical, doesn’t make sense - you’re ‘free’ to buy a super yacht only in the sense that there’s no person preventing you from doing so, but it’s not an actual possibility for most people.
You should check out, if you haven't already, the mirror Zoe posted awhile back of Raymond Geuss discussing the problem with the positive/negative rights framework. I believe it's embedded in a discussion on free speech or campus protests.
@@JebeckyGranjola It has nothing to do with is/ought. The only ought here is that we ought to maximise freedom for everyone, which is a value in and of itself, not derived from any ‘is’.
I don’t think it’s immoral to buy a yacht, I’m saying some people have the real possibility of buying a yacht, and others do not. The people for whom buying a yacht is not a realistic possibility, do not in any meaningful sense have the freedom to do so. It is the society that has created the conditions where yachts are the purview of only a few that is immoral, not the act of purchasing one.
A definition of freedom which says I have an equal level of freedom as a person who controls vastly more resources, is not a good definition.
I don’t see how utility comes into it either. I think you’re very wrong in your assessment that utility, an abstract notion of happiness or satisfaction, is the same thing as what is being discussed here, which is the number of options available to a person.
I’d caution you against using words like ‘lazy’ when you’re clearly way off base on what’s even being argued.
@@JebeckyGranjola No, you’re not getting it. You’re just trying to cram it into a box you already know, and then complain that it doesn’t fit.
If anything it can be derived from a Kant-esque deontological position that everyone is equally entitled to be treated as ends in themselves, with their own desires and agency, worthy of dignity. Maximising freedom - for each and every individual, not in aggregate, which alone distinguishes it from utilitarianism - is the means of ensuring that agency.
@@JebeckyGranjola Where is anyone saying someone ought to buy a super yacht simply because they can?
@@JebeckyGranjola I still don't really understand what you're getting at. Perhaps the misunderstanding is that I'm not actually trying to give a justification for maximising freedom, I'm trying to contrast two different ways of thinking about or measuring freedom.
One is not free untill everyone is is free
Do you mean "One is *not* free until everyone is free"
Edit: it's been changed now
@@rhaq426
No, they meant "One is not free until everyone is is free."
Get with the times! 🤣
@@badger1296 my bad but i think you'll find it's
"One is not free *untill* everyone is is free"
(not trying to make fun of ste kra, everyone has bad spelling/grammar online)
this actually encapsulates all three core tenets: freedom, equality, and solidarity. everyone is equally free, and we support the freedom of everyone else
Thanks Zoe. Really enjoyable Friday evening education.
Your work here is always so thorough and well-organized. Looking forward to getting a copy of your book. Wish I could pre-order today, but I will soon. Officially on my reading list.
Already pre-ordered a while ago, this excerpt just makes me more excited to read it!
It's really amazing I feel like Malatesta has it all. For me he's always had the best definitions and fullest realized conceptions.
Cicero's definition of freedom is the only compelling one I've ever heard.
Freedom is a Participation in Power.
_Spread the bread, comrade!_
Thank you, this was an unexpected find on RUclips!
No gods, no masters, no billionaires.
No capitalists regardless of how successful they are
Thank you for another great piece of educational material!
I'm very excited for this one (as always l0l)! Perfect timing to watch with breakfast!
Hello! Happy pride, everyone! 💖🏳️⚧️
Happy Pride, Death! 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
I: Happy Pride! ✊❤
I pre-ordered your book! It arrives next month (July 2023)! I've never pre-ordered a book before! I use a lot of exclamation points.
Your videos are amazing and I am so glad to finally have your book (ordered both as epub and physical)! Already using it in my Research MA thesis on agape (unconditional & universal love) and anarchism💚
I agree the most with Alexander Berkman on freedom, positive and negative freedoms are much easier to work with than just one type of freedom.
Will you do a full audiobook? (whether on youtube or audible or something)
The “you wouldn’t download bread” meme got me 😂
Finally pre-ordered! Look forward to my copy arriving in New Zealand later this year
Pre ordered!
I'm looking forward to reading it!
Thanks for this and all your stuff
Very interesting video! The division in freedom equality and solidarity reminds me of Erik Olin's theory of anti-capitalism, taking the struggle battlefronts as continuations of the enlightenment project of "freedom, equality, and fraternity".
I hope to read your book! It's so difficult for me to find this information organically because of the algorithm (mine leans conservative & capitalist, unfortunately) so I have to intentionally search for creators/authors who fairly represent views outside my bubble. Anyway, I'm curious how the anarchist worldview treats the reality of those in society who are limited in agency such as the physically or mentally disadvantaged (forgive me if that's the wrong word), infants, terminally ill, and those who care for them.
I preordered a while back! Very excited! Thank you for this ❤
Great video, Zoe! Can't wait for your book to drop!
Very interresting! Tanks 🙏
will be buying this one!
I greatly regret that my unemployment prevents me from preordering this book & greatly encourage everyone else to do so, if they can.
Thank you so very much for your work! 🏴💜🖤🏴
This was great. Looking forward to the book!
I'm exited for the book!
Ordered mine💚💚💚
Very cool!
Need
Your new avatar is so cute Ms. Zoe!
What do you mean by "to be and ought to be"?
Is your book going to be released as an audiobook? I have serious trouble reading but listening is way easier 😂.
I love this. I need that book in spanish
I hope that if your book has one of those chunks in the middle which is filled with pictures that those pictures are just various memes featuring anarchist thinkers and actors.
Long days and pleasant nights, sai.
Can you have it translated to greek?
chatgpt does a great job translating, you can just copy paste from the pdf as uoi read and ask it to translate it.
Damn! I'm going to have to find the money to buy that now 😞
Good video.
Superficial comment, but that's a dope cover.
🎉
I see Thelema and Anarchism as compatible. Anarchist ethics and thelemic writings like Liber OZ definitely support this.
Omg, a long abstract!
Anarchists come off to me as highly idealistic but not very realistic
So you're quoting Bakunin.
Didn't you tell us he was a racist and conspiracy theorist and by implication a crank who should be dismissed?
Frankly I'd rather dismiss YOU as a crank.
"By implication" doing a lot of heavy lifting there buddy
I seem to recall that Zoe actually said that he was vocally and nastily antisemitic, and therefore we should examine his ideas very carefully before accepting only the ones we find sound. But if you want to be a crank instead, you do you.
@@trioptimum9027 Zoe is a woman and uses she/her pronouns
@@finalcut612 Yes? "He" in that sentence refers only to Mikhail Bakunin, who was (to my knowledge) a man and used male pronouns. To expand: "Zoe (she) said that he (Bakunin) was antisemitic, and therefore we should examine his (Bakunin's) ideas carefully."
@@trioptimum9027 sorry, I must have misread your post
note that freedom equality and solidarity (worded fraternity because of sexism) are the official values of france, so my conclusion is france was an anarchist contry from the beggining 😁
When has it ever been an anarchist country?
@@tonyisnotdead 1871
@@rbxless according to Wikipedia it was a secular social democracy. doesn't sound very anarchist to me
@@tonyisnotdead I mean the Paris commune (this is just a joke anyway, I'm not seriously saying France was ever anarchist)
Ms. Zoe, I am proud of you and I am proud of your supporters. Although I do not idolize you, I believe that you are a force for good in this world and any support that is given to you is a means of amplifying that good into the world! Again, I am very proud of you AND what you do! 🦚🏳️⚧️🦚