Man is condemned to freedom Alles en nog wat

JJean-Paul Satre said that man is condemned to freedom.
What could that mean?
What could it mean for you?

In existentialism it is said that one is "thrown" into existence by the accident of birth.
This gives man the task of determining himself.
This seems to be difficult because morals and ethics, for example, are not innate. In any case, I believe that morals and ethics are formed from a mixture of upbringing, experience, education, socialisation, experiences, etc.
Does this then mean that "freedom" is not actually universal?
If morals and ethics determine the boundaries, that is what remains: Freedom.
And this freedom is something different all over the world and also something different for every individual.
I don't think it all fits under one hat 🙂.
So what is freedom? And can we deal with it?

I think, where are two people, there is limit to freedom of each other. Where are any laws (natural like physics, or invented by man) , there is limit to freedom.

So if two people want live in peace, they have to be wise, rational, and respect each other.

Freedom was never unlimited. It can't be. But I believe, as long as our freedom doesn't hurt or doesn't disturb other's freedom, it's okay.

We can simplify it just like this: let's share the cake we found. No one did put effort in baking, so just split it for each other in same portion.

Or, what Emanuel Kant said: behave in the way You would like to expect from others.

Of course, in reality this is also more complicated, because there is a lot of egoists and people who thinks that they have right to more freedom, even for the cost of other's freedom. Corrupted ones.

It could be simple, but it depends of people.

For sure it's not granted, and it can't be unlimited. But still many people have less freedom than they should.

JJean-Paul Satre said that man is condemned to freedom.
What could that mean?
What could it mean for you?

What always amazes me with these literary "debates" is how stuck in a bubble they are, forgetting to define their axioms and ignoring knowledge outside of, at best, philosophy.
For instance, there seems to be an assumption of what freedom is: why?
Also, why is it related to morals and ethics? How is morals and ethics not innate? You claim this before stating "I believe", but what are the reasons behind this belief?

No offense. I take you as an example here, but the remarks apply to all those people like Sartre.

Freedom is an illusion. Freedom is when when someone is happy with their lifestyle, it doesn't matter if they are trapped or not. We are condemned to freedom because we can't see our cages, or because we see its ghost, which scares us and stops us from flying away.
At least that's what I think it means...