This text presents a critical analysis of freedom understood as self-determination and autonomy, referencing a formulation by Charles Rorty influenced by Rousseau. The author challenges the definition of freedom as the ability to decide independently on personal matters without being shaped by external influences. The central critique targets the problematic assumption of the human being as a pre-given entity and the ambiguous boundary between what does and does not concern an individual. The text highlights a paradox: if freedom were defined strictly by the absence of external influence and the disregard for consequences, the most ignorant person would logically be the freest. By questioning where the limit of personal relevance lies, the author argues that such a conception of freedom is fundamentally flawed. The reflection calls for a deeper reassessment of human autonomy, suggesting that true freedom cannot be achieved through isolation from external context or ignorance of the broader impacts of one's decisions.