ABSOLUTE VS. RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM

Definition of the word freedom

media laws and ethics  ABSOLUTE VS. RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM

Freedom means to be really free and able to do exactly:

  • whatever you want
  • when ever you want
  • how ever you want
  • with who ever you want

Freedom is the basis for Love to develop and the basis for health and the basis of general well being and happiness in your life. Freedom is one of the most valuable gifts God gave to mankind. It is one of the most powerful as well, it let’s you feel like a child of God – made to the image of God. But who of you truly feels like a child of God, who of you can truly say “I am free!”? Let’s have a look at freedom, what it is, how it feels and how to restore it. To know exactly what freedom is, we may first have a look at a few examples of the opposite of freedom. The opposite of freedom is slavery. The old fashioned slavery, where a person was property of another person still exists in certain countries – however usually in different forms than earlier. Modern slavery is different and often in disguise. Hundreds of Millions of people on this planet feel uncomfortable without knowing why. Often it is due to lack of absolute freedom. Freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want. Politicians may be slaves of their political party, of their own ideas, of their own beliefs and desires, of their own career or of their wish to be in a reputable position and to be mighty. Citizens may be slaves of their country, of the politics in their country, being restricted in their activities, restricted in the free expression of their opinion, selection of jobs, selection of the educational system of their own choice, to travel or leave their own country. Managers may be slaves of their own business, position, investment, system, ideas, and projects. Children and babies may loose their freedom to their parents, to their teachers, to educational systems, to the government who deprives them of many potential rights and their divine freedom while being children, to the church or religion they have been made to belong to.

Concept of Freedom

When you have truly realized absolute freedom in your life, then you certainly know exactly how it feels to be free and what freedom is. To circumscribe or define the status of absolute Divine freedom may be difficult. Freedom is, if any day, any second of each day’s time you can do exactly what you want, what you decide, you can be where you want to be and then you are free. The vast majority of the world’s population at present has little or no freedom at all, without being put in jail. Their mind, country, job or home is their jails. Most of the world’s population has put themselves into jail without realizing it. To make you fully aware of the definition of freedom I’ll describe a few examples of various situations in life where people currently have lost their freedom partially or completely on this planet. From these situations described you may derive a full understanding of the definition of freedom and get a clear and shocking picture of your own status of freedom within yourself.

Individuality, Freedom and Ethics.

The modern conception of man is characterized, more than anything else, by individualism. Existentialism can be seen as a rigorous attempt to work out the implications of this individualism. The purpose of this lecture is to makes sense of the Existentialist conception of individuality and the answers it gives to these three questions: (1) what is human freedom? What can the absolute freedom of absolute individuals mean? (2) What is human flourishing or human happiness? What general ethic or way of life emerges when we take our individuality seriously? (3) What ought we to do? What ethics or code of action can emerge from a position that takes our individuality seriously?

Let’s begin by seeing what it could mean to say we are absolute individuals. When you think of it, each of us is alone in the world. Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears immediately, subjectively, from the inside. Other people only see us from the outside, objectively, and, hard as we may try, we can only see them from the outside. No one else can feel what we feel, and we cannot feel what is going on in any one else’s mind. Actually, when you think of it, the only thing we ever perceive immediately and directly is ourselves and the images and experiences in our mind. When we look at another person or object, we don’t see it directly as it is; we see it only as it is represented in our own experience. When you look at the person next to you (contemplating how their rear-end feels), do you really see them as they are on the inside or feel what they feel? You see only the image of them that is presented to your mind through your senses. This is easily demonstrated by considering how our senses deceive us in optical illusions, but one simple example will have to suffice here. [Split image demonstration] It seems, then, that we are minds trapped in bodies, only perceiving the images transmitted to us through our bodies and their senses. Each of us is trapped within our own mind, unable to feel anything but our own feelings and experiences. It is as if each of us is trapped in a dark room with no windows. Our only access to the outside world being a television screen on one wall on which we (with our mind’s eye) perceive the images of other people, places, and things. Thus, to be an absolute individual is to be trapped within ourselves, unable to perceive or contact anything but the images on our mental TV screen and to be imperceptible ourselves to anyone outside of us. In a world where science has opened up and laid bare the nature of subatomic particles, far-away planets, and the workings of our very own bodies and brains, it is to remain, ourselves, hidden from the objective view. It is to be an island of subjectivity in an otherwise objective world.

The Ethics of Absolute Freedom

This conception of happiness, however, raises our third question: How ought we to act towards other people? If the source of our value and nature is wholly internal, what obligations can I have to other humans? Can I freely and authentically choose to kill my mother, as Orestes does? Can I choose to be a murderer, a thief, or an exploiter of humanity? Is it true, as some Existentialist were fond of pointing out, that if God is dead then all things are allowable? The ethics of absolute freedom, it would seem, are not absolutely free. To be free we must take on the responsibility of choosing for all men, we must desire and work for the freedom of all men, and we must create ourselves within the context of the relationships and obligations we have to other people. Is the ethic of absolute freedom a portrait of human greatness? Human excellence often defines itself in the struggle against the forces that oppose human flourishing. Existentialism attempts to find happiness, value, and meaning in a modern world characterized by isolation, in authenticity, and absurdity. It attempts to see what human excellence can consist of if we find ourselves to be islands of subjectivity in an otherwise objective world. You will certainly want to ask if this is in fact what we find ourselves to be, but can it be doubted that the Existentialist attempt to find meaning in the face of absurdity exemplifies the basic drive that all portraits of human excellence must embody.

Responsibilities of Freedom

Whenever one begins to write down “rules” and develop structures and social theories invariably a cry comes out about limiting freedom. This cry is often ignored, we do not wish to ignore it, it deserves an answer, though not a particularly polite one.

Individualism Is Oppression

Freedom, along with many other words we use in political debate, has been twisted by rhetoric and spin to the point that it is almost simply propaganda. The “freedoms” we talk about almost invariably require that others provide for our actions. We rarely speak of the freedom to walk down the street, or the freedom to grow our own food, we often speak of the right to housing (which must be built) or food (which must be harvested), or this that or the next thing. Insofar as our “freedoms” require the work of others they are not libratory, they are oppressive, they are privileges, not rights, and in the interest of justice they require our equitable participation and labor.

To attempt to disclaim responsibility for this work, for the labor which must be expended to have “freedom” by necessity denies freedom to others, it is no less oppressive then slavery or war and it is in fact the tacit demand for both.

Responsibilities of Freedom

Whenever one begins to write down “rules” and develop structures and social theories invariably a cry comes out about limiting freedom. This cry is often ignored, we do not wish to ignore it, it deserves an answer, though not a particularly polite one.

Individualism Is Oppression:

Freedom, along with many other words we use in political debate, has been twisted by rhetoric and spin to the point that it is almost simply propaganda. The “freedoms” we talk about almost invariably require that others provide for our actions. We rarely speak of the freedom to walk down the street, or the freedom to grow our own food, we often speak of the right to housing (which must be built) or food (which must be harvested), or this that or the next thing. Insofar as our “freedoms” require the work of others they are not libratory, they are oppressive, they are privileges, not rights, and in the interest of justice they require our equitable participation and labor. To attempt to disclaim responsibility for this work, for the labor which must be expended to have “freedom” by necessity denies freedom to others, it is no less oppressive then slavery or war and it is in fact the tacit demand for both.

Responsible Freedom: We could claim the right to the freedom to do whatever we are capable of, and some people do this. It would be difficult to argue that claiming the right to all that is possible is in any way conducive to justice. If it were so injustice would be impossible, and it would not be an issue. This is clearly not the case. What then do we have the just freedom to do? What actions does justice grant us the right to perform? Can we construct a just freedom which is not, in fact, a responsibility as well? We have the just right to the freedom and means to perform at least as much labor as we require providing for ourselves as well as the freedom to demand and hold responsible all others to the same criteria. We further have the just right to not be oppressed, not oppress, and not permit oppression. It is commonly claimed that choice is necessary for freedom, and this is to some extent true, but only within limits. Are we free to choose not to be free? Are we free to choose not to respect the freedoms, rights, and responsibilities of others? Clearly we can not justly claim boundless freedom of choice, we must constrain our right to choice to the point that they do not infringe upon the freedoms or rights of others, either though action or inaction, and that this responsibility extends beyond the obvious to the consequences of all which we actively or tacitly support. It is a common tenant of law that malice is more damnable then neglect. Justice leaves us no such sanction; inaction is only possible to the dead. Only the ridiculous oversimplifications of law allow for the assertion that one did nothing. If one simply breaths and eats one requires that food is grown. By consuming that which has been made available through human labor, one becomes fully culpable for the consequence of the act of non-contribution. Since we are justly responsible for what we do, and to equitably contribute to what is done for us, and as we must eat, breathe and have shelter in order to live, justice then require that the living must act and contribute. We must therefore accept that there is no just freedom without this responsibility, that “freedom” without this responsibility is not freedom at all, but the act of enslavement of others. To any question of “rules” we should then ask: Is this rule non-conducive to justice? Can we honesty act contrary to this rule without contributing to the oppression of others? If we can not answer these questions in the affirmative then we must accept that these “rules” are statements of responsibilities, responsibilities which we already have, weather we have been living up to them or not.

Conclusion

God given freedom – given to all mankind means ZERO limits in anything you ever want to do or however you want to do it. Freedom means also to move freely around all planets, free of borders, free of administration, free of visa or other requirements. Freedom is the result of God’s infinite and eternal love – at home in God all will enjoy eternal freedom. Any restriction of freedom is the result of ego only and needs to be dissolved. Any – even smallest restriction of God given freedom is always against God. All are free by divine birthright – all will be free when ever they decide to return home. At home in God no single person ever can restrict freedom of anyone as freedom is above human laws. Divine freedom eternally and infinitely is always above all human laws – anyone to select his freedom and making use of his freedom always benefits form God’s help, grace and mercy – provided he achieves his freedom with love and only love.

VN:F [1.9.14_1148]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.14_1148]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)