I'm new to this site, and didn't vote. Don't think I have sufficient rep for down votes to matter. This is based on what I've seen on other sites...
Some people vote based on their personal beliefs (eg, hermeneutics), not the merits of the post. In those cases, it's hopeless, unless you're willing to frame your posts according to the prevailing beliefs. I'm new to this site, so don't know what it's like here, but I would expect a solid argument against freewill would acquire a fair number of down votes because it challenges a core assumption about agency. However, if it could be framed in terms of something innocuous, the reception could be different.
Your question appears to contain a double-whammy. It potentially challenges beliefs about both freedom and death, so I'd expect down votes to be inevitable. I'm not sure how the question could be reframed, but it's probably too late for that.
At this point, your main option is to try to address any concerns people raise in comments. After editing, respond to the comments to let people know you've addressed their concerns so they can consider revising their vote. Some people down vote to encourage revision, and they do retract their votes, or even switch to up votes.
I do find your difficult to understand. Here are some points that can be improved:
- A quote or explanation of what "freedom toward death" is referring to.
- A brief summary of the book, or link to one, for those who haven't read it or who need a refresher.
- What does "key for authenticity" mean? What does "authenticity" mean in this case?
- Refrain from using the word "obvious". Err on the side of explaining why you think what you do. Something that is "obvious" should be self evident. If that were so, there would be no need to ask a question in the first place.
- Maybe some grammar issues? Otherwise, there are strange phrases I can't parse, like "this freedom is me". Would that mean that I am the mortal embodiment of freedom?
- Similarly for Levinas. A summary explanation or link of what you understand of him.
- Brief explanation of the "other".
- "my freedom is for others" – ????
- "my authenticity would not fall foul of that" – ???