Freedom
a good word gone bad
To be free is the opposite of being constrained. Nobody likes being constrained. Constraint conjures images of prisons and straitjackets.
The thing is, constraint very often enables freedom but we often don't see our constraints as constraints. Our ability to move around depends on gravity constraining us to the ground and friction. With friction we need to strike a balance. Too little friction is as hard to deal with as too much.
Imagines wading through deep snow vs walking on wet glare ice.
A bicycle is an interesting device. You can only go forward and the amount you can turn is limited but on a flat surface the feeling of freedom of movement is huge. It's actually easier to ride a bike on flat glare ice than it is to walk on it.
Our bodies have skeletons that constrict our movements quite a bit though we are generally unconscious of that. What we get in return is the freedom to move around easily on dry ground.
One way to think of society is that it's a system of restraints that enables maximum freedom. I surmise that there is an evolutionary pressure there. Societies that have the right balance of constraint and freedom prosper while the others fade away (or are conquered).
So we can think of freedom/restraint as a sort of dynamic structure.
The idea of freedom goes bad when it is detached from constraint.
I observe as an outsider that the idea of freedom in the USA has morphed into something else that I don't quite get. Remember 'freedom fries' from 2003? The meme grew as an American protest against France refusing to go along with America's ill-fated invasion of Iraq. What exactly is freedom referring to there?
I remember 'Moms for Freedom'. IIRC they were a group wanting to control the books available to kids in libraries. They raised the freedom/constraint structure in a very ironic way. Their name would be 'Moms for Constraint' if they were honest.
When I grew up I was taught that I lived in the "Free World" in contrast to the Communist world. Stories abounded about 'iron curtains' and the suffering within. I can remember commentary in newspapers and magazines about how drab communist cities were.
So one way the word freedom went bad is that it came to mean anti-communist. For example, I've heard of Americans opposing universal healthcare on the grounds of 'FREEDOM' which only makes sense if you think that universal healthcare is creeping communism.
Farley Mowatt was a Canadian author who wrote animal stories that captivated me. He wrote very funny stories about his dog named Mutt. He wrote about his time as a biologist studying wolves in the arctic barrens by living with them for months at a time.
In 1970 he wrote Sibir - an account of a journey he made to Siberia. Life in Siberia was not drab. The Siberians were warm and friendly.
They liked universal healthcare and education and employment. Mowatt was radical because he showed that people living in the Soviet Union were normal people. To blunt, contra the anti-communists, communism wasn't so bad.
Amartya Senn and Martha Nussbaum wrote about how to measure the quality of life for people in a society.
They considered stuff like access to healthcare and education.
They considered feeling part of a community.
They considered feeling able to participate in culture and politics.
They considered opportunities to fall in love and family.
They called their measure 'the capabilities approach' because it focused on what people need to be healthy and happy.
I don't think they ever mentioned 'freedom'.
The American Declaration of Independence states
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
—— I've always thought that to be a good idea.
Jefferson kinda lied. I'm sure he knew about slaves (he was a slaveholder) and subjugation of women. His statement is true if we take 'men' to mean 'white male landowners'.
Slaveholding aside, I do think that Jefferson and his colleagues were trying to set up a system that transcended their own situation. They tried to set up a system of checks and balances that made it hard for any group to claim that 'freedom' meant 'freedom for my group'.
What do you think?
I open the floor
I present regular philosophy discussions in a virtual reality called Second Life.
I set a topic and people come as avatars and sit around a virtual table to discuss it.
Each week I write a short essay to set the topic.
I show a selection of them here.