Freedom Isn't Free

you have said that, but something doesn't have to be described accurately to exist. it has to be described accurately to be talked about epistemologically, but that's not a weakness of the thing, it's a weakness (depending on how you look at it) of epistemology. (in other situations, it might be a strength. but epistemology isn't everything to everyone... it clearly means an awful lot to you.)

I agree that often certain phenomena can't be described adequately, and this is because of limitations in our language. For example, my sociology class tried admirably to operationalize the word 'love', and found that they couldn't quite manage it. However, as I have said, this is not because 'love', or 'free will', or anything else, is magical and unexplainable. We have to invent magical concepts such as free will because our knowledge is limited, and we don't understand the universe sufficiently (by 'we', of course, I mean 'you'). We should deconstruct these ideas, strip them down, forget about the traditional weight they carry, and question them obectively.

objectively, meaning taking all information into account. until you can do that, language will always be an abstraction, and will always describe things subjectively. open up an atlas, set it on the floor, and walk around on it. that's language. a diagram isn't usually the thing it diagrams. language is the limitation.

we have the freedom to decide if we don't want to be free
freedom is a mental state of mind...