Here is the opening:
This seems like a giant straw man. Who thinks or says this?Freedom is a powerful idea. But I am not sure we are always very clear what we have in mind when we speak of it. Does freedom mean doing whatever we feel like in any given moment? Does it mean having the power and liberty to exercise our will with no obstruction? Does it evoke a state in which we have shed ourselves of all obligations to others?
Many of our notions of freedom are based implicitly on the idea that we are utterly self-sustaining and separate entities. This model leads us to feel that others’ claims on us undercut our freedom. We experience our relationships as ties that bind us and limit our freedom. Based on this, we assume that we cannot all be free, because the freedom of one person comes at the cost of another’s.
But then it continues:
And, so, apparently people to whom HH has spoken do actually put forth this ridiculous position that freedom is absolute autonomy and the satisfaction of every desire without impediment. I've never been unfortunate enough to meet people like that, but I can accept that they exist.When I hear what people say about freedom sometimes, it sounds to me like longing to live out the fantasy of being independent and absolutely autonomous individuals, of being free of consequences and responsibilities—that is to say, exempt from the principle of interdependence.
In your experience, is this a common view? I'm sure a wide variety of viewpoints exist, but is this view held by enough people that it deserves a counterargument? In essence, is this a straw man?