Yes, bbb. If one thinks these other "choices" are actually legitimate, one cannot really commit oneself to any choice, since how can one choose something if every other choice is just as good? But if one knows one's nature and the action that is most concordant with that nature, then one can really choose one thing over another. Knowledge of one's nature, of oneself, is essential then to making a real choice. And this knowledge consists in knowing what is good for oneself, and what is bad. And knowledge of what is good and bad for oneself is knowledge of what is within the limits of one's nature and outside the limits of one's nature, respectively. Freedom then requires knowledge of limits, not the absence of limits. Perfect freedom requires perfect knowledge. And having only one real choice according to this perfect knowledge would not make this choice an obligation, since this real choice would be made with the greatest concordance with one's nature compared to all other choices, which, according to perfect knowledge, would clearly not really be choices, but things absurd and harmful. It seems to me, therefore, that nobody would consider this real choice an obligation, but something welcome and good. It seems to me that only those who think that a person is something other than his nature, and that choosing according to nature can go against the person, can believe that nature is against freedom. But if a person is something other than his nature, then what is he?
Please correct any errors, thank you.