2005-04-13 04:24:33白牛
essay about freedom
What is freedom?
‘Freedom is the being of man’. Sartre claimed that human beings are unconditionally free. In Sartre’s view, the world is irrational in which events happen in total random. Things are just there out in the world, essence and nature do not exist. Man in the world, too do not have a fixed nature. He is free from pre-determination. He is, therefore, what he makes of himself. Freedom is then belongs to the very character of human existence and as such it can not be limited, restrained or lost. A person is allowed and capable to make choices response to his desires, wishes, plans and commitment. In Sartre’s interpretation, human acts are free; he is free to what he will.
Schopenhauer, too, suggests the idea of freedom is in accordance with one’s will-- What we say of an individual that he is free only when he can do what he will, and when he is not hindered or restrained by something external to his will. However, although Schopenhauer agrees that individuals are free to what they will, he doubts that one could will independently without any cause or not being affected by any external force. To Schopenhauer, every event is necessary in relation to its cause. It can not be for nothing that we will what we will. Each person must be moved to will what he wills by something, what one wills must have of a motive. Thus, in this sense, the idea of freedom becomes a paradox—one is free to will yet he is not free from the cause which determines his will and therefore, Schopenhauer expresses, ‘Every man, being what he is and placed in the circumstances which for the moment obtain…can absolutely never do anything else than just what at that moment he does do. Accordingly, the whole course of a man’s life, in all its incidents great and small, is as necessarily pre-determined as the course of a clock.’(1)
How, in the context of modern society does Schopenhauer’s statement make sense? Modern democracy free individual from external authority and absolutist states. Individual in modern society are granted with freedom. In the world fully packed with choices, individuals are free to choose from tea spoon to president. They are allowed to vote, speak, travel, business. Individuals in modern society, appeals as independent, strong and free. Yet, Erich Fromm in his book—The Fear of Freedom expose the ambiguity of the strong, independent individuals in contrast with their powerless and fear in the structured society system. Fromm argues modern man are not free, they are under suppressions from external authorities. He points out, although man in modern society is granted with freedom and right of choosing, yet they are unconsciousness about the meaning of freedom and unaware of the reason they react towards their choices. He argues a truly free individual should be able to show spontaneity with his expressions in corresponding to his thoughts and emotions. And yet the spontaneity of man has been suppressed within the structure of society. By taking an example of education, he explains how the social structure suppresses the spontaneity of individuals and how it channels individual’s thoughts and actions. ‘Most children are with certain levels of rebelliousness and hostility as a result of their conflict with a surrounding world that tends to block their expansiveness and to which, as the weaker opponent they usually have to yield.’(2) But yielding in adult’s world is antagonistic reaction which is inappropriate. Therefore, education is used to ‘explain’ to children the in appropriation of their action. Education takes forms in punishments, threats or explanations guided by parents, schools or other power authorities which aimed in one result—to suppress one’s spontaneity and to train oneself into an non-identical to the others. But what sort of ground does the idea of yielding is inappropriate roots? Education as an idea of teaching knowledge has no doubt but the forming of knowledge, the basin of which it depends and develops, the question of why and how have never been discussed trough to individuals. Thus, knowledge under modern education system became data, information, and rumor. Individuals are taught to be the same equal products under the profound democracy yet they are discouraged, suppressed to their very own thoughts and emotions. No others are allowed besides those who obey the laws. Education in modern society, on one hand fulfills individual by driving facts, information about how to survive in today’s social system, on the other hand blind them with ignorance to the nature of the system and its creativities, its possibilities of changes.
Freedom, in modern society became a perceive concept. It became an illusion that one can will whatever he wants yet what is true is that he wills only what people want him to will. In college, he wills to get good marks, when grown up, he wills to be success, to make more money, to have prestige, to go places, and so on. All the willing he makes are not truful to himself but subjects to the value concept he receives, adopts from his friends, parents, colleges which are apart from his own self. One’s will, its freedom then been manipulated into a submission to other’s expectations.
But, if man is not free from his custmustances, he is pre-set to the way he thinks, he is brought up the way he is, how then freedom is possible accordance to one’s will? To say it as possible, individuals must re-read the debate of freedom with a new angle. They shall admit the existing limitations of causality. By admitting the limitations, one then is able to see the frame, the outline of the space that conceals him. By realizing the frame, having an insightful view, individual are bigger than the frame. They now understand the situation they are in and realize the inferences that external forces have affects on their characters. Through the realization, individuals found themselves. They finally became ‘the self’ by understand what they are made of, who they are and where they are. With the understanding of themselves, the consciousness of being ‘the self’, their wills then, are allowed to have a ‘self’ to be depends, one’s will therefore is an original choice of oneself than a manipulated product of external forces. One’s will therefore, free.
It is of course, one can say human beings are determined by the causality, but what really made them unfree is the failures to know themselves.
Freedom in today’s social structure, often used in politics, has always been referred to the ability of a party, of what it can promise. Freedom has been abused to achieve self-satisfaction in the expense of others or of one’s own health. Social freedom is often spoken of in relation to constructive freedom. However, no one really knows what freedom is or how to achieve it. In this essay, starting with Sartre, ‘of humans beings unconditionally free’ to Schopenhauer, ‘in accordance with one’s will’, it shows that these words in themselves generate a beginning in the possibility to achieve the abstract idea of freedom. But due to social and political circumstances, such as hierarchy, people are not encouraged to rethink the kind of freedom in its social system. They fear the limit of their own ability, social status; fearing that they do not have the power. Power, money and authority are often viewed as roots to freedom. Is it true that these are the only passages? Yes, to a certain degree. We cannot ignore the existing structure, but we are not bound by it. It exists as we exist. It was chosen to be there (the social system was developed and chosen in order to make change) as it is with us. We have a choice; or rather we have the freedom of choices as an individual. If we recognize that the existing limitations are only a matter of construct that makes evident as to what is possible and what is not then the choice reveals itself, it becomes us, our consciousness, our knowing it. If we know ourselves, our choices, then the structure becomes an extension of what we can make of ourselves, a series of tools of intentions and actions. Freedom, maybe, is about knowing where, when and why we are opening the door.
(1) Free Will ….p.166
(2) The Fear of Freedom….p.209
Bibliography
Ways of Seeing John Berger Penguin
Visual Thinking Rudolf Arnheim University of California press
Free Will Ilham Dilman Routledge
The Fear Of Freedom Erich Fromm Routledge
‘Freedom is the being of man’. Sartre claimed that human beings are unconditionally free. In Sartre’s view, the world is irrational in which events happen in total random. Things are just there out in the world, essence and nature do not exist. Man in the world, too do not have a fixed nature. He is free from pre-determination. He is, therefore, what he makes of himself. Freedom is then belongs to the very character of human existence and as such it can not be limited, restrained or lost. A person is allowed and capable to make choices response to his desires, wishes, plans and commitment. In Sartre’s interpretation, human acts are free; he is free to what he will.
Schopenhauer, too, suggests the idea of freedom is in accordance with one’s will-- What we say of an individual that he is free only when he can do what he will, and when he is not hindered or restrained by something external to his will. However, although Schopenhauer agrees that individuals are free to what they will, he doubts that one could will independently without any cause or not being affected by any external force. To Schopenhauer, every event is necessary in relation to its cause. It can not be for nothing that we will what we will. Each person must be moved to will what he wills by something, what one wills must have of a motive. Thus, in this sense, the idea of freedom becomes a paradox—one is free to will yet he is not free from the cause which determines his will and therefore, Schopenhauer expresses, ‘Every man, being what he is and placed in the circumstances which for the moment obtain…can absolutely never do anything else than just what at that moment he does do. Accordingly, the whole course of a man’s life, in all its incidents great and small, is as necessarily pre-determined as the course of a clock.’(1)
How, in the context of modern society does Schopenhauer’s statement make sense? Modern democracy free individual from external authority and absolutist states. Individual in modern society are granted with freedom. In the world fully packed with choices, individuals are free to choose from tea spoon to president. They are allowed to vote, speak, travel, business. Individuals in modern society, appeals as independent, strong and free. Yet, Erich Fromm in his book—The Fear of Freedom expose the ambiguity of the strong, independent individuals in contrast with their powerless and fear in the structured society system. Fromm argues modern man are not free, they are under suppressions from external authorities. He points out, although man in modern society is granted with freedom and right of choosing, yet they are unconsciousness about the meaning of freedom and unaware of the reason they react towards their choices. He argues a truly free individual should be able to show spontaneity with his expressions in corresponding to his thoughts and emotions. And yet the spontaneity of man has been suppressed within the structure of society. By taking an example of education, he explains how the social structure suppresses the spontaneity of individuals and how it channels individual’s thoughts and actions. ‘Most children are with certain levels of rebelliousness and hostility as a result of their conflict with a surrounding world that tends to block their expansiveness and to which, as the weaker opponent they usually have to yield.’(2) But yielding in adult’s world is antagonistic reaction which is inappropriate. Therefore, education is used to ‘explain’ to children the in appropriation of their action. Education takes forms in punishments, threats or explanations guided by parents, schools or other power authorities which aimed in one result—to suppress one’s spontaneity and to train oneself into an non-identical to the others. But what sort of ground does the idea of yielding is inappropriate roots? Education as an idea of teaching knowledge has no doubt but the forming of knowledge, the basin of which it depends and develops, the question of why and how have never been discussed trough to individuals. Thus, knowledge under modern education system became data, information, and rumor. Individuals are taught to be the same equal products under the profound democracy yet they are discouraged, suppressed to their very own thoughts and emotions. No others are allowed besides those who obey the laws. Education in modern society, on one hand fulfills individual by driving facts, information about how to survive in today’s social system, on the other hand blind them with ignorance to the nature of the system and its creativities, its possibilities of changes.
Freedom, in modern society became a perceive concept. It became an illusion that one can will whatever he wants yet what is true is that he wills only what people want him to will. In college, he wills to get good marks, when grown up, he wills to be success, to make more money, to have prestige, to go places, and so on. All the willing he makes are not truful to himself but subjects to the value concept he receives, adopts from his friends, parents, colleges which are apart from his own self. One’s will, its freedom then been manipulated into a submission to other’s expectations.
But, if man is not free from his custmustances, he is pre-set to the way he thinks, he is brought up the way he is, how then freedom is possible accordance to one’s will? To say it as possible, individuals must re-read the debate of freedom with a new angle. They shall admit the existing limitations of causality. By admitting the limitations, one then is able to see the frame, the outline of the space that conceals him. By realizing the frame, having an insightful view, individual are bigger than the frame. They now understand the situation they are in and realize the inferences that external forces have affects on their characters. Through the realization, individuals found themselves. They finally became ‘the self’ by understand what they are made of, who they are and where they are. With the understanding of themselves, the consciousness of being ‘the self’, their wills then, are allowed to have a ‘self’ to be depends, one’s will therefore is an original choice of oneself than a manipulated product of external forces. One’s will therefore, free.
It is of course, one can say human beings are determined by the causality, but what really made them unfree is the failures to know themselves.
Freedom in today’s social structure, often used in politics, has always been referred to the ability of a party, of what it can promise. Freedom has been abused to achieve self-satisfaction in the expense of others or of one’s own health. Social freedom is often spoken of in relation to constructive freedom. However, no one really knows what freedom is or how to achieve it. In this essay, starting with Sartre, ‘of humans beings unconditionally free’ to Schopenhauer, ‘in accordance with one’s will’, it shows that these words in themselves generate a beginning in the possibility to achieve the abstract idea of freedom. But due to social and political circumstances, such as hierarchy, people are not encouraged to rethink the kind of freedom in its social system. They fear the limit of their own ability, social status; fearing that they do not have the power. Power, money and authority are often viewed as roots to freedom. Is it true that these are the only passages? Yes, to a certain degree. We cannot ignore the existing structure, but we are not bound by it. It exists as we exist. It was chosen to be there (the social system was developed and chosen in order to make change) as it is with us. We have a choice; or rather we have the freedom of choices as an individual. If we recognize that the existing limitations are only a matter of construct that makes evident as to what is possible and what is not then the choice reveals itself, it becomes us, our consciousness, our knowing it. If we know ourselves, our choices, then the structure becomes an extension of what we can make of ourselves, a series of tools of intentions and actions. Freedom, maybe, is about knowing where, when and why we are opening the door.
(1) Free Will ….p.166
(2) The Fear of Freedom….p.209
Bibliography
Ways of Seeing John Berger Penguin
Visual Thinking Rudolf Arnheim University of California press
Free Will Ilham Dilman Routledge
The Fear Of Freedom Erich Fromm Routledge