Okay, so I'm free to do anything but I think this supposes

this is why the greeks never spoke of freedom as an amulgation of "rights" positive or negative, abilities 'granted' or provided for, or abilities 'not prevented'

They spoke of freedom as a quality of character ie "the free man". At least beginning to think about this distinction between freedom as a quality of men, and the modern political notion of freedom being exclusively something which describes MEN in a polity

>>9904227 (cont)

will lead you in a direction to think about this

>>9904227
Maybe this is an ok response with regard to enlightenment era notions of natural Rights, but how does this relate to Sartre? The notion of freedom of modern existentialism is not a rights-based notion of freedom. Freedom is not even a secondary 'quality' of man.

Man is fundamentally free, because he is ontologically -just- open being, that is never set or determined but always becoming. Man's possibilities cannot ontologically be distinguished from his realitas.

>>9904274
>so I'm free to do anything but I think this supposes that humans want to do anything in the face of meaninglessness in life.

You touch on it right there. You must see some tension between the existentialist notion of ontological freedom and the preclassical notion of masculine freedom.

>I think this supposes that humans want to do anything in the face of meaninglessness in life
the tension is located in the fact that this description does not apply to the latter notion of freedom

please don't dismiss the pre-moderns

>>9904154
Why are jumping from freedom to meaninglessness?

>>9904356
Sartre himself uses meaninglessness as a foundation for his philosophy.

>>9904360
lol, low iq bait-poster, move on

>>9904360
How does he jump from freedom to meaninglessness?

>>9904367
It's the other way around.
Existence before essence.
>>9904366
Honestly, what's wrong with you?

>>9904376
just can't help myself but to fuck with a faggot like you when I see one haha

>>9904386
Haha nice