Even if I can appreciate her conclusions and general vision on freedom, the way she presents it, with little evidence or substantiation other than what other philosophers wrote on the topic, makes it a little old-fashioned, while the subject is of course very relevant in today's context. Many of her statements are just statements, without any link to earlier premises and without connection to earlier steps in her reasoning. Or sentences such as : "Where everyone does the same, nobody acts in freedom, even when nobody is directly coerced or compelled" are hard to understand without any examples. A counter-example could be a rave party for instance. Why would the dancers not act in freedom?
Nevertheless, despite the somewhat aged style and the lack of substantiation - it is after all just a lecture and not a scientific article - her thoughts remain of interest in today's world, where freedom is still far from being achieved for the large majority of the population, and certainly not the freedom to be free.
No comments:
Post a Comment