Hello All, been a while since I last psted, and things in the uni-work situation haven’t changed much! I have an essay due tommorow, which should be interesting as I’m arguing about freedom in a Nietzschian / Gide / Margaret Atwood perspectives and whether Post Modernism or Modernism presents the best form of ‘freedom’.

To do this of course, I need to know what freedom is – we all think we know waht freedom is, but it is really quite a complex term to not only define but even reconcile to the real world. People have fought and died for freedom, but essentially it exists still as an independent concept – that is everybody has their own idea of what their personal freedom is, and philosophy certainly doesn’t seem to help reconcile that freedom.

Anyway – I regard freedom as the ability to choose between totaly equaly propositions or beliefs. By totaly equal, I mean probability and incentive wise.

In regards to this, if somebody was to coerce you into a decision, either by positive or negative means (reward or punishment), that decision would not be made freely, because the choice the external party wants you to make has a higher probability of appealing to you, as it results in a reward or removal of punishment.

As most everybody knows, advertising, marketing, society and environmental factors impact onteh decisions we make. Under my definition of freedom, I do not believe decisions influenced by these factors are free – the probability of your choices has been altered by some external factor.

These views of mine ar ein direct contrast to Mike’s, who believes (as best I understand) freedom is the ability to make a choice, regardless of the factors influencing your choice. Providing you have a choice, even if that choice is heavily influenced by an external party – it still represents the freedom.