Given the power of the scientific critique of freedom, it is hard to know how one might reply. Even a reply could be seen as the result of socialization
So, let's define. When people think about freedom, often they mean negative freedom.
1. Negative Freedom = non-coercion. This is "freedom from". This is essentially Mill's position on freedom. So long as people act of their own will, and are not coerced, then they are free.
2. Freedom = Non-coercion + multiplicity of personal choices.
3. Freedom = non-coercion + personal choices + power to make the choices come to pass.
4. Freedom = non-coercion + societal choices + the power to make the choices come to pass.
Are we free by this point? Is it really possible to have non-coercion, and at the same time recognize that there are social choices, the sorts of things that people would choose if they knew what was good for them?
5. Freedom = the basic way of being
Sartre: "Existence precedes essence"
Freedom is not a property that we might have or might not have. For Sartre, it is the one non-negotiable. Freedom is that which makes us different from other things around the world. We have a choice in the face of this freedom. We can either conceal it, using a variety of devices, or we can accept our freedom, and realize we are responsible for our own acts.
What if he's right? What happens? We become responsible for the world, and ourselves.