Only “God” is free - By Samuel Mack-Poole
“None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free.” -- Johann Wolfgang Goethe.
What a topic! Freedom is something that I’ve thought about in quite a lot of detail. I’ve really considered it; the implications it has, its definition, whether humans can be truly free. However, I think it is my duty to define what freedom is:
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
These definitions were found on the reputable website, www.dictionary.com. I find the five definitions to be of particular interest. If we think about it in detail, the average human will find that they do not possess freedom to any real satisfaction.
With regard to the first definition given, humans are always under physical restraint. We exist in the dimensions of space and time. As such, we are hindered by physical laws. The laws restrain our freedom. We may not be physically imprisoned, but we are prisoners of the laws of physics. If I want to fly -- an innocent wish, desired since the dawn of humankind – I cannot flap my arms and elevate from the ground.
The second definition, dealing with external control, makes me think of advertising. Our brains are bombarded with thousands of adverts on a daily basis; as a consequence, our thoughts are interfered with – quite Orwellian, if one thinks about it. If one is fortunate enough not to have been brain raped with adverts, then they are born into a society of constructs, which determines our thought. Let me elaborate: God. That one word, capitalised, following the colon provoked you to think. What did you think of? A Judeo-Christian God, robed and bearded in the sky? Are you free from that thought, even if you happen to be an atheist?
The third definition, action without restraint, made me think of handshakes. Yes, you read that correctly. Handshakes are very interesting. They are the standard form of greeting, as determined by western etiquette. As a consequence, if someone offers their hand to shake, are you really free not to?
These are the options:
a) Shake the hand as is expected.
b) Don’t shake the hand and cause offence.
It seems that something as trivial as a handshake poses a provocative question to freedom. Of course, you are free to have the option not to shake hands, but the option not to has a negative consequence. Thus, it is quite clear that even if we have the option not to shake hands, we cannot escape etiquette per se. We are forced into scenarios such as this on a daily basis, and we feel we have to robotically obey such social rules, or face stigma for being rebellious. Obey or don’t obey -- any notions of freedom evaporate from your mind when we are confronted with etiquette. To be more concise, you have an option, but you are certainly not free; you have been forced to choose, after all. It seems we have the power to determine action, yet it is with restraint.
The notion of political and national independence is a red hot political potato at the moment, with the results in the local elections. However, this sense of independence doesn’t really determine a country is free.
With regard to international politics, how is any country free? They are all tethered to alliances, be it to the imperial wishes of America, or with a loose group of pariah states who don’t conform to American imperialism. If a nation is independent from others, it will still have to work with those overs. Whilst Britain is an island, it isn’t metaphorically on the diplomatic stage.
Imagine the world’s countries are planets with gravitational fields. Although they are separate in a material sense, they are intertwined through their gravitational relationships. Separation does not lead to freedom, as is displayed through the prior metaphor.
The fifth, and final, definition, that of personal liberty makes me laugh. We are all born into bondage, and it is bondage of thought. Whilst we may think we are free because we are not slaves (such as those poor souls sold from Africa and sent around the globe like cattle in ships), we have no freedom to choose which time or place we are born. We are slaves to our birth. More important than this, we are slaves to the thought of the society we are born in. If you are born into an Islamic society, you will (almost certainly) be Muslim; if you were born in the 1920s in Germany, you probably would have been a National Socialist. We are not free to decide which ideas we are presented; this makes slaves of us all.
In the end, only “God” -- a sentient being of infinite intelligence, infinite power and infinite life is truly free. However, we mere mortals must guard the few freedoms we have left like sweaty palmed toddler would his/her favourite toy. For, as a relative as freedom is for us, it is of the highest importance.
In the end, I can only agree with Jean-Paul Sartre, “Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you.”
Samuel Mack-Poole
The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 48 'Freedom'
