Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of freedom

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

INDEX
Freedom versus Oppression: Introduction
Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of freedom
Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of oppression

Freedom versus Oppression: the definition of freedom

What do you think about when asked the question: what is freedom? Perhaps freedom from work. Or freedom from someone bullying you. Maybe freedom as the opposite of slavery. It could be that you see freedom as the possibility to do what you want, when you want. In this text i attempt to find a definition of freedom.

Basic elements

Ideas defining freedom can be classified in two categories. Freedom from and freedom to. Freedom from perceived negative factors, and the freedom to act upon a certain wish or desire. If i am freed from slavery, i can go about as i please. If there is no law enforcement, i am free to steal, murder of simply jaywalk. I want to eat burgers all day, but i fear early death. Once Hitler was beaten, European Jews could practice their religion once more. In these ideas there is always a coupling of two elements. A desire and a limitation to act. These are the basic elements of freedom. Any idea about freedom can be expressed in these two elements.

Concepts related to freedom

There are many concepts related to freedom in one way or another that could potentially impact our definition. For instance, suffering, opportunity and intrinsic capability. Would any freedom related concepts also impact the definition of freedom? Is there a need for several definitions of freedom? Let's take a look at a few examples of concepts that are related to freedom.

Intrinsic capability

If i desire to fly like superman, there is no human holding me back. However there is the oppression of gravity. Within my body, i lack the capability to overcome this limitation. Of course i can build a flying machine, or perhaps a machine that bends the laws of physics, or even reach a plain of understanding that lets me fly like superman, but at the moment, i can not simply walk out my door and take off. Believe me, i have tried. Intrinsic capability is a limitation on freedom.

However is intrinsic capability a practical or even fair kind of limitation to mention in a definition of freedom for mankind? If you are not capable, whom do you blame? Can it be changed? Is it practical for us humans to rage against nature? Against the way we exist? Perhaps not.

It could be that someone broke my wings, of course. I had the capability but lost it. That would not be an intrinsic limitation on my freedom, it would be extrinsic. It comes from an external source outside of my body. A human action. Freedom in this case would be to be free from the action of another. And this is achievable, by stopping this person, either by force or by persuasion. Of course this idea about freedom this would simply fall under: a limitation on a desire. No need to mention capability via a separate definition of freedom.

Of course if i simply lost my balance and broke my wings, what then? There would be an external cause right? Well that depends how you look at it. Whom is the blame? No one. It would also not be possible to alter this past event. The problem would simply become an intrinsic one again, a limit from my own body, without practical use in the definition of freedom.

Opportunity

Then there is opportunity. I never had the opportunity to become an astronaut. I had the capability but i wasn't selected. I was never given the chance to speak in front of my class, and thus become a great politician. My school did not believe in public speaking. My band was never picked up by the mainstream industry. We could have been great. These are just a few lost opportunities that have impacted my freedom to do what i want. You could say that my essential freedom, the American right to pursue happiness was lessened. So should opportunity not be included in the definition of freedom? The same logic we used for capability applies. If there is a human external cause that limits opportunity it would fall under freedom from the actions of others. A limitation. If it is just luck, the way the universe panned out, it would be pointless to include it.

Suffering
As a final concept i would mention suffering. After this one, i think we can keep applying the same logic if we were to find more. If you have cancer, you suffer. It would be great to be free from cancer. Or at least freedom from the pain, the debilitation. However, again there are things we can do something about, human actions, and things we can not (yet) alter, and where no one is to blame. The things we can not alter would be useless to mention. For the events we can have an effect on, it would fall under freedom from the negative influence of others. Freedom from a poised water supply (fracking) for instance. So freedom from suffering would not be specifically mentioned in any definition of freedom.

Now that we examined a few concepts, we find an important factor for our definition of freedom. For practical reasons, we will have to limit ourselves to the human dimension. Freedom to can only be about things we can actually do, and freedom from only concern human influences*. There are many more concepts you might think off, like the concepts of need and fear. As mentioned above, we can apply the same logic each time. Every freedom to and freedom from idea can be broken up into a desire and a limitation. No concepts related to freedom, have a separate place in the definition of freedom. No matter how important they are, no matter if they were the first thing you thought of when freedom was mentioned. There is thus no reason for separate definitions of freedom.

*to be more precise, sentient influences. however since there are no aliens yet, i only mention humanity.

Desire versus free choice

The actual definition of freedom is a little trickier than merely sorting out what we should mention in it and what not. We haven't fully explored freedom to and freedom off. What actually is it to be free? Free from what, free to do what? Freedom from desire, from limitation? What state of being is freedom? Is it the famed ability called free choice? Or freedom of choice? Let's take a look at desire versus free choice and find out what is useful in the definition of freedom.

If i have the desire to rape children, do drugs, or kill people, am i really free? You might say no. I would be suffering from mental disease. A burden on me and, if i act, on you. The best thing for me would be to be freed from these desires. The best thing for society would be to lock me up and melt down the key. A few easy conclusions. However, what about the desire to be famous, or eat a lot of chocolate? With some thinking, we might conclude these desires too would be something we best be free off. They lead to obesity and America's got talent. Clearly for a lot of candidates in hindsight something best done off camera.

Let's now make it a little more difficult. How about the desire to go for a walk each day. To help others, to read books, do science, to vote for Jesus. A desire moves us to to do these things. If i desire, i am still not free, or am i? Why do i want what i want in the first place? Can i choose not to want what i want? Can i choose something else to want?
My desires..they make me do what i want to do. But i simply have them. I have no choice not to want, only not to pursue. I can't choose something else to want. And no choice is ever free from desire. The choice to pursue would mean my desire to makes the decision. The choice not to pursue would mean my desire to be free from makes the decision. Usually from the punishment of society, or perhaps my own disgust.

And here lies the issue. A desire is absent of free choice, yet it rules our behavior. Our desires are programmed into us by the experiences of life, and our D.N.A. This means we can never be really free. We can not shed our desires. Or could we? Would true freedom perhaps mean we could choose what to desire, or choose not desire at all? Many people have pursued this would be true freedom. However, they were mistaken in their pursuit.

Why? Well, let's turn things around for a bit. What would choice mean without desire? What would a human being be without desire? If you are not motivated somehow, you can not make a choice. Matters would go undecided. Nothing would happen. Our species would go extinct. You might say, well, if you are not motivated by your own desires, you could attend the needs of others. Yet, the will to do so belies a desire. Namely the desire to help others. For whatever reason. Vanity, the need be liked, etc.
Free choice means a choice impeded by nothing, not even desire. The ability to make a choice without any predetermination. The pursuit of freedom from desire can of course be useful, to rid yourself of desires you yourself judge to be harmful. To entirely go without would mean the absence of being, of a soul. You would not exist. Just imagine it. No desire to...eat, breathe, talk, make fun, apologize, think, act. Thus no choice can ever be truly free. It is always motivated by something. And that something is always based upon a desire. Furthermore you can not freely choose what to desire and what not, because this choice too would be motivated by a desire.

Desire does limit our freedom, technically, but without it we would not exist, both in the existential sense and the physical one. Free choice is an illusion. It can not be included in any definition of freedom. Freedom of choice of course is covered by including our desires and the limits others might place upon it. In any definition of freedom, we would have to allow for human desire and remove free choice. It would include the freedom to pursue our own desires, and the limit others might have upon it.

Freedom as a potential

We are almost there. There is one more thing i want to mention. Potential versus action. Does freedom mean doing something, or having the potential to do something? People often perceive the latter as true freedom. Take the freedom to do what you want at work.. The boss is a limiting factor for a lot of people. Looking over your shoulder perhaps, setting up rules maybe, or judging you in personnel reviews. His mere presence might be perceived as limiting what you do or when you do it. However, would this mean if there was no boss, you would be eating pizza and throwing around computers all day? Or make funny prints via the copier? No. Most of us would tire of this behavior very quickly, if not out right reject it. We would want something to get done, to be useful.

Without a boss we would still work. However we would often choose to do things differently. People like to have the potential to do what they want. They would not take random and negative advantage of this. Having a boss is always at least partly unwanted. The reason for this is the overall limit a boss places on the potential to pursue our own desires. Not merely the limiting of actions that harm the company.

The point is that any limit placed on our potential to pursue any possible desire is felt as thus, a limitation.. The limit on our ability to commit murder, law enforcement, is still felt as a limit. Always, by anyone. Law enforcement limits our potential to act anyway we see fit. We would rather be without this limitation. That would be true freedom, would it not? No limits placed on our choice of action. No limit on potential. Of course this does not mean we would actually commit murder! Neither does it mean we don't want anyone to stop a murder. We very much do.
Our definition of freedom would have to include any limits placed on the potential to carry out our desires. Even the ones we agree with, or the ones we understand. They are limits, however useful.

The definition of freedom

At first glance, the definition is as follows:

Free choice, without any limitation on our actions.

If we apply what is said above about choice it would be:

The freedom to pursue our own desires. Coupled with: The absence of limitations on the pursuit.

If we then take into account what we discovered about some of the factors that might impact the definition, such as capability, suffering and opportunity, we discover that for practical reasons we would have to limit ourself the human dimension. The definition becomes as follows:

The freedom to pursue our own desires. Coupled with: The absence of external human limitations on the pursuit.

What we discovered about potential would not impact the definition. We could stress the importance of potential by saying: the absence of any human limitations on the pursuit. However, i think it is enough to just to be mindful of it. To smoothe the definition we can make it:

The freedom to pursue our own desires and the absence of limitations placed by others.

In the next text i will discuss oppression. Some of the questions that are generated by this text will be asked and hopefully answered. For instance, via the text about potential, you might wonder what kind and level of oppression is actually necessary.