jgweed, thanks for the reply but it just re-affirms what i already believe to know.
I am interested in how this condemnation to choose can be considered free.
Granted, we are free post-condemnation, that after the requirement of becoming we are responsible for each action we take regardless of whatever influences may have impacted on us and become the reason for our choice.
This pre-requisite where we have to choose should negate the idea of freedom.
that the context of our deliberation is determined by its inevitability, we have to choose, is it not also compelled by the notion of death?
We have to die and this will be our escape from the condemnation of freedom, the neccesity to choose, but we continue having to choose our semi-permanent states, or modes, in spite of this.
We are free to do everything but stop being free.
We are free to do everything but stop being free, in the knowledge that death will be the release from the requirement 'to be'.
So, knowing that we are free bar freedom itself by neccesity and one day will be free from this having to choose, how in either situation are we ever actually free?
Even in the first person perspective we are not free, therefore, but are being teased by the notion. Flirted with.
'This' freedom amounts to little, if anything, other than a jest.
From this freedom we become semi permanent modes of something, interchangeable with something else, but never anything of consequence or matter. What type of freedom can it be if we can never actually be