On Freedom
Defining
When we look to define what freedom is there are many avenues we can take as to many people freedom can mean different things. It is such a subjective term that it may have different definitions on a per person basis regardless of cultural, national, or religious beliefs. Referencing a dictionary provides some insight into possible definitions. When utilizing Merriam Webster or Dictionary.com we can see a plethora of examples in an attempt to explain freedom for these different scenarios whether it’s in a political sense, a personal sense, or philosophical. I found that the 2nd definition from Dictionary.com was quite apt in its description: “exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.”.
For my own definition, I can expound a bit further: Freedom is the absence of restriction. Not having bonds that confine you to a particular location, responsibility, or action. It is the ability to do what you want when you so choose without any hindrance. In the simplest sense, at your liberty and leisure.
In the most extreme case, I was made aware of the term libertine which from its etymological origin simply denotes a man freed from slavery. In its more modern form it has taken on an apparently more sinister meaning of: “a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality.” The term usually is in the pursuit of amoral sensual behavior, but I believe it serves as an example of approaching freedom through removal of conventional restrictions. Albeit, causing the imposition of your will upon another.
In any case, the definition that you prefer to use will be dependent on the situation in which you seek freedom or subjugation. Ultimately it will be dependent on the simple fact of being removed from restriction.
Practical Use
In practice, most individuals will have a mix of pressures in their daily lives. This can be from a variety of sources such as a country’s laws and the practiced or cultural religion they are a part of. You can also extend this to other pressures such as that from friends and family, societal norms, or media influence.
There are plenty of factors that play into the actual or perceived constraints placed upon us as individuals and these will ultimately shape how we interact with and live in the world around us. It’s also important to highlight the above mention of “actual and perceived” as sometimes the only thing stopping someone from doing something is the mere thought they cannot whilst no restriction ever actually existed in the first place.
Legal
In our first example we look at the established law in a nation. This will be any written rule, guideline, or requirement that is imposed upon the people either for their own benefit or detriment. Commonly, the U.S. is understood to be the land of the free. But to what degree is this true and what does this mean?
The U.S., like any country, has a litany of rules that it imposes upon its citizens to create a system of law and order amongst the population. One of the most important of these rules is outlined as the Bill of Rights, which permits certain things to be protected rights by law.
Such popular examples are:
1st Amendment - Right to freedom of religion, speech, press, and protest.
2nd Amendment - Right to bear arms.
4th Amendment - Right to privacy.
These rights are enumerated as such to maintain the freedoms of citizens of the United States against the government itself. It allows us the ability to be safe from persecution in exercising certain freedoms. But why are laws necessary to protect them in the first place?
Historically, we understand the Bill of Rights to be necessary against tyrannical behavior from British rule, but also as a means to prevent the rise of a new tyrannical government, even under democratic rule.
In short, there are certain freedoms/rights that we deem necessary enough that it requires the written law to protect them that they may be maintained for future generations. Simultaneously, there are also certain actions we deem reprehensible and choose to restrict the ability to do those activities and thereby restrict freedom.
Examples of this can be restricting: killing, stealing, public intoxication, disturbing the peace, etc.
We restrict these activities because we aim to maintain the peace within our society and thus collectively deem it necessary to restrict these particular freedoms that are deemed ‘bad’. In essence, these bad freedoms work to undermine the freedoms of others, and as such must be prevented.
Religion
On the other end, we have the religious context that can permeate between the legal systems of various states with their own (and sometimes separate) types of laws and practices. But, let’s take a closer look at the reasoning why some basic religious laws exist.
From the perspective of a Catholic, you have the Canon Law. The Canon Law is separate from the Ten Commandments that most are accustomed to. As some examples we can see requirements for the laity to learn the faith, raise families in the faith, and support the faith, etc from Cann. 224 - 231.
One particular example from the same section I will quote in its entirety as it pertains to our topic:
Can. 227 - The lay Christian faithful have the right to have recognized that freedom which all citizens have in the affairs of the earthly city. When using that same freedom, however, they are to take care that their actions are imbued with the spirit of the gospel and are to heed the doctrine set forth by the magisterium of the Church. In matters of opinion, moreover, they are to avoid setting forth their own opinion as the doctrine of the Church.
This speaks to allowing freedom insofar as it abides by the doctrines of the Church. But, for creatures that were given the gift of free will, why should we follow these laws or the Ten Commandments?
In my own subjective view: It’s because love is the greatest good.
The Church aims to grow the love of Christ/God and its laws are a clear reflection of that. It echoes a similar sentiment from our Legal section above in the sense that we have deemed certain freedoms important enough to protect and to prohibit the activities that would erode the peace and love within the Church, and thus within society.
In Excess
Previously, I mentioned the word libertine as one who deviates from conventional restrictions. The word took strong root in France during the 18th century and produced quite a scandalous amount of texts. One of the particular texts from Marquis de Sade stands out as significant. Not only because of its fiendish nature, but also because he wrote it whilst imprisoned for having performed abhorrent acts.
In a short synopsis, the novel details acts between wealthy Frenchmen and a large entourage of accomplices, servants, and victims for the main goal of ultimate sexual gratification. The text essentially goes down the list of erotic imagination culminating in severe sexual violence, torture, and murder.
There’s a lot to be said of the details and the sickness of the writer, but the main focus is the recurring themes of denouncing God and abandoning the standard moral convention in an effort to be ‘free’, to be a libertine. However, in the process of practicing freedom the author both in writing and in deed demonstrated his cruelty and errant disregard for others. Ultimately culminating in his eventual imprisonment in an insane asylum where he died.
This look at excess can show us a few fundamental problems. Firstly, that if your freedom results in the loss of freedom (and life) of others, then you are deserving of having your freedom (and life) lost. Secondly, by attempting to appease the appetite of the flesh as your ultimate goal you get enslaved by the very appetite you are trying to feed. Finally, by denouncing and rebelling against the very systems which enabled your life, you lose access to the fruits of that system.
The Balance
The systems we create as individuals and as societies can have a variety of benefits and potential detriments if taken to extremes. Sometimes you may not get the choice of society and have to conform to a normalcy that is against the nature of freedom. As noted above, some restrictions can be good to help protect the well-being of a person given they’re prescribed in moderation and not for the purpose of intentional harm. Other times, the restrictions can be oppressive and abusive.
The middle ground we must find is one between what we can control as an individual and what can be tolerable in our society. More or less, you lead your own life at home and as such it might behoove you to maintain a system of rules. This is in order to not fall victim to the absence of rules that would result in the excess of freedom. Meanwhile, a society filled with excessive rules restricts you to the point where the practice of freedom becomes difficult as the society will choose the path for you.
As such when we search for what we are looking for, we come upon the need for moderation where we have restriction within the self and restriction within the society. Both of which we can influence to some degree. Internally more so than externally.
Reasonable Restriction
Where, then, do we agree on restriction? As individuals, we’re able to see first hand the results of our actions and can self regulate per our personal preference. Not to eat or drink too much, whether or not to partake in certain activities, and even whether or not to participate in society.
Society as a whole may not appreciate this, but society also needs to understand for its own sake that saying no can be the greatest expression of freedom. The ability to say no is what enables you to stop a potential cycle of harm. To say no to yourself for your own or someone else’s benefit. To say no, even when you don’t want to.
The ability to say no to himself would’ve spared de Sade a lot of trouble in his life. His lustful appetite for abject freedom was the very thing that was restricting him. The ability for us to say no and restrict ourselves would equally be the very thing that would help set us free.
In our refusal we should be able to discern the source and whether or not it’s truly a freedom or a restriction. What does this take from me if I say yes? Does it nourish or harm me or someone else? What happens if I do it too much or too little? All these questions and more should be on our mind when discerning the things that bind you and whether or not you should say no and restrict them.
Closing
Doing what is best for us and others should be one of our primary focuses. Especially so when our actions start affecting others around us. No one wants to be hurt, and as such no one should want to hurt someone else. But this remains a constant effort to balance within our greater society.
In a bid to take control of ourselves, we can boil down our considerations to a few basic premises so that we may steer our own actions for the benefit of ourselves and others:
No imposition of one will upon another.
Moderation.
Care for the system within you and without you.
Through the practice of these examples, we can eventually work towards what it means to be truly free.
Thank you, ~Michaelion