Freedom & the State - Quentin Skinner (2015)

A few clips of Quentin Skinner discussing two types of freedom and the state with academic filmmaker Howard Burton. This comes from a 2015 program called Ideas Roadshow. Ideas Roadshow is an award-winning multimedia initiative dedicated to using the power of film to explore frontline academic research. For more information, go to ideasroadshow.com/.
#philosophy #politicalphilosophy

[@WeeklyBibleTalk]

Would love to see the whole conversation. Does anyone have a link?

[@Ideasroadshow]

You can find the whole conversation on the website underneath the video.

[@gonx9906]

Can you upload the full interview?

[@Ideasroadshow]

You can find the whole conversation on the website underneath the video.

[@gonx9906]

​@@Ideasroadshow i went to the website, couldnt find the interview of Quentin Skinner, too much stuff.

[@CCLilja]

How is Hillel Steiner's concept of a "throffer" to be understood within the Liberal tradition?

[@ghamessmona]

❤

[@pingukutepro]

At this rate, if we trace back freedom then we will end up right at the limit of our existent. We are not free to move everywhere due to our physical ability ( in this way a bird is more free than human ) We are not free in the state of nature, because our nature is social animal... Therefore we form our group and that group take alway our natural freedom. In the end, when talks about freedom/liberty. We should always put it in context. Like Freedom in that particular nation state or something

[@noahboa4894]

Albert Einstein once said, “if you can’t explain it to a 6 year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” This is a prime example of that. All this extra stuff like negative liberty or adding unnecessary words before certain ones like “civil” before “freedom” or “political” before “liberty” just confuses people. It makes a simple concept seem very complicated.

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

No, this is absolutely NOT a prime example of that! These aren't unnecessary words that are just being added for the hell of it. On the contrary, they are essential for understanding and explaining the very concepts that are in discussion here. If one doesn’t bother to distinguish between the various different concepts of freedom and the like which are at issue here, then one is more likely (not less) to end up in confusion! But things shouldn't be simplified at the cost of understanding and clarity.

[@noahboa4894]

@@Philosophy_Overdose what are the various concepts of freedom?

[@gonx9906]

Actually no. They use different words because they have different views, but each view is pretty easy to explain.

[@xenoblad]

It seems difficult to take preemptive action without coercion. Housing codes for construction seem like necessary coercion or mandated education for young people seems coercive. I don’t think most would disagree with having some minimum building codes to not have buildings spontaneously collapse like they do in 3rd world countries or with having a basic minimum educational standard for all citizens. I’m not sure I can trust the market to not exploit customers with buildings that will collapse in 30-40 years to save money, or with charity ensuring poor people get decent schooling.

[@Khuno2]

So relativism.

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

Why do you say that?

[@Khuno2]

@@Philosophy_Overdose Because significant freedom depends upon a named and recognized status, which is conferred by a status granting institution (e.g., citizen/slave, lord/serf,capitalist/employee). The status granting institution, along with the statuses and the liberties and obligations entailed by them (civil personhood), have and continue to vary widely, and so, too, the conceptions of significant freedom. It seems also that there is no freedom outside of historical traditions which these statuses can be appropriately assessed against. That seems like relativism to me, but perhaps not.

[@Mai-Gninwod]

Disagree

[@FracturedParadigms]

Interesting contribution