In order to answer the question of what is required for an individual as he exists in society to be free, we must first understand what freedom is. In synthesizing ideas from the texts studied this semester, thus far, I have arrived at the conclusion that freedom can be described as the ability to pursue activities that fulfill oneself, and contribute to our own happiness, and self-actualization as an individual. To say that freedom can be “defined” would imply placing limits on freedom, and would be counterintuitive. Erich Fromm states that “[Freedom’s] meaning changes according to the degree of man’s awareness and conception of himself as an independent and separate being (23).” The less a person is bound to obligations albeit moral, economic, social, or political, and more self-actualized, the more likely he will be to seek happiness through activities that are free from influence of these aforementioned entities. The notion of freedom that will be discussed in this paper is strongly tied to Freud’s suggestion that individuals must “strive after happiness; [we] want to become happy and remain so (42).” Freud suggests that we accomplish this by channeling our instincts and regulate them, as to not be a slave to them, or indulging our libido, by accomplishing personal goals, and pursuing creative endeavors which are free from outside influence. Freud offers other ways to cope with the misery we find from our own decaying selves, the external world, and other people,
Flags burning under raining bombs, gunshots echoing through a field of raining terror, while hiding underground for the day where humanity can roam free again; situations as so aren’t exactly what people imagine when thinking about one’s future. Every death was honored by those who lived; lives lost during wars of any kind are unlike lives lost in our country today, not for the value of those once living are greater than another, but from how much those lives mean to this day. Establishment and preservation of freedom wasn’t easy and will never be easy; many people served until their last breath, for the freedoms of our lives today. That is why we must continue to grasp for freedom, and to establish and preserve our freedom most effectively we must have the heart to be free, and have united dedication to freedom itself.
An American essayist, H.L. Mencken stated, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants be safe”. I disagree with this statement because an “average man” wants to live. In order to live you must have two necessities; freedom and safety. I believe neither is more important than one another because being free gives you the opportunity to a safe nation, and a safe nation allows you to be free. You cannot live a life without exploring and growing because that would not be considered living. On the other hand, you cannot expect to be free without safety around you.
One of the greatest and more fundamental gifts of life is the autonomy that comes with being a sentiment human being. This hasn’t always been considered a human right, however, and many eastern hemispheres are struggling to catch on to the concept that people should be allowed to make the decisions they choose without the external pressure to do otherwise. Thus, the question that should be asked is whether or not every human being on this planet is free, whether they should be free and what does free really mean. For many, freedom is all about that ability to to choose what they want, make their own decision and be able to move around as they please. Freedom is about equity, free speech and the guarantee of life, no matter how good or bad.
America is the universal symbol of freedom. But is it really free? Does the history of the United States stay true to the ideas of our forefathers? Or has the definition been altered to fit American policies? Has freedom defined America? Or has America defined freedom? I believe America was at first defined by freedom, then after time, America defined freedom, altering the definition to fit the niche it fits in, but still keeping key components so it still seems to be staying true to the ideas of America’s founding fathers.
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion,” is a quote written by Albert Camus, which displays the complexity of defining the term freedom. Jean-Paul Sartre’s play “The Flies,” defines the concept of freedom as the accountability of one’s own guilt, which allows individuals to recognize their own freedom. Furthermore, an individual that accepts accountability for one’s own guilt and responsibility for the city, or complete isolation, is living in freedom. Likewise, Zora Neal Hurston’s novel Their Eyes Were Watching God explores the notion of being or becoming absolutely free, finding her voice,
From the earlier times in our lives till now, we humans have been struggling hard to be free and independent of the things that limit our right to be free. And even though some people say that having security in life can regulate our lives and messy societies, I believe that too much security or limitation causes more dilemmas. Also, by being independent and free, one can learn new things rather than just by sticking to some widely held beliefs. We can see many examples related to this assumption everywhere in our lives, movies, books, and history.
In “Human Freedom and the Self,” Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance, arguing that freedom is incompatible with determinism, that determinism is in fact false, and that humans do posses the kind of freedom required for moral responsibility. Chisholm argues that a deterministic universe, where all events, including human actions, proceed from prior events without the possibility that they would proceed differently than they do prevent the possibility that humans are responsible for their actions. To validate his libertarian beliefs, Chisholm sets out to prove that humans are responsible for their actions and also the thoughts that lead to those actions. In order to answer this problem, Chisholm believes we must make some assumptions about the man who preforms the act.
According to Psychologist Abraham Maslow in “Self-actualization and Beyond,” self-actualization is a process in which one identifies his inner ability to do something productive. Once this inner talent comes out, that’s when a person actualizes himself. He believes that every individual self-actualizes, and while doing so one might make many wrong choices. Sonny and his older brother are faced with several obstacles while being on a journey to self-actualization in “Sonny’s Blues” by James Baldwin. However, these obstacles not only come from their surroundings, but within themselves as well. The narrator himself and his younger brother, Sonny struggle with, and gradually develop their own
For generations, we as a society have evaluated what we call our freedoms, as they constantly continue to influence our quality of life. In the 1940s, President Franklin Roosevelt's Message to Congress promised the people of America Four Freedoms, or freedoms that are imperative to human life. These freedoms included freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Freedom of speech goes back to the first amendment where there is the liberty of expression. Freedom of worship allows people to practice any belief system they desire, as well as worship the God that they please. Freedom from want meant no citizen should have to yearn for the basic needs to survive, and should be provided with a standard living. Finally, freedom from fear meant for there to be no fear of having to use aggression against a neighbor, in addition to being granted peace and a sense of security. These were the guaranteed freedoms stated by the president for the future. However, as time progressed and certain events in history began occurring, these freedoms may have slipped from view and become less practiced. It is clear to see that the United States government did not effectively uphold these freedoms during, the time the U.S declared war against the Japanese, during the scare of Communism, and in the day to day life for citizens in minority groups.
In the paper, “Human Freedom and the Self” Roderick M. Chisholm offers his theory of human freedom and defends it against a couple objections. One of the objections we will talk about which is the second objection is connected to the concept of immanent causation, where causation is by an agent, he argues how the statement “the prime mover unmoved” (page 391) has been subject to difficulty. Chisholm explains immanent causation as being an agent causing the event A to happen, but although the agent is causing A to happen the agent is not moved by anything. The argument to this objection is that “there must be some event A, which is caused not by any other event but by the agent” (page 391). Well since A was not cause by another event then the agent couldn’t have produced anything either to bring A about, so “what did the agent’s causation consist of” (page 391). Also another point that was made in the objection was the question “what is the difference between A’s just happening and the agents causing A to happen” (page 391). Chisholm responds by saying that there is a difference between man causing A and an event causing A. The two are not the same because transeunt causation is connected to determinism, which makes the train of events, happen and immanent causation as he explains it is when the agent causes the event. He then sums up his answer by saying the reason “lies in the fact that, in the first case but not the second, the event was caused by the man” (pg. 391) He
Today we accept that freedom is a basic right human right but what exactly is freedom. 1On one hand, there is physical freedom. People who are not imprisoned or enslaved are free. On the other hand, there is freedom as a the right to act, speak or think what you want. People cannot reach their full potential if they are not free in both senses of the word.
Freedom means, to carry out one own choices, actions without coercion or constraint by necessity or circumstances. Fate often take a hand in the distillation of freedom. When this distillation occurs at weaker levels, benevolent slavery begins. A benevolent master usually receives gratitude from those slaves who are aware of their good fortune and will, in turn, work willingly. This form of slave's future is relatively certain, assured and predictable. Their offspring, born into a benevolent slavery, find the thought of freedom disturbing.
There are a number of situations in which reasonable minds can disagree. Businesses normally face such situations. For example, a company situated in country A may be selling clothes from country C. It happens that the media has been criticizing the company for selling products, which are believed to be produced by children. Suppose the company conducts research and find out that the clothes it is selling are made by children. The investigations also shows that it is not the girls fault nor is the company’s fault to have the girls who are still young employed in such a company. It also shows that the society does not educate girls beyond the sixth grade. To worsen the situation,, the researcher found that the society is poor and cannot provide the basic needs to the young girls. The respondent reveals “if you shut this plant down, you will literally take food off the table for these families and that there are no other opportunities in the town.” This means that preventing the employment of young girls would cause more problems than improve their situation. On the other hand, laws from country A may prohibit the child labor. Some thinkers may believe that the young children should be allowed to go to school. This is because it is their legal rights. However, if legal measures are taken and that the girls are prevented from working in the factory, it will not assist them but instead cause more problems. For example, forcing them to
of us fail to cherish and value our granted freedom. Many of us do not
By contrast, “the ‘positive’ sense of the word ‘liberty’ derives from the [individual’s] wish … to be his own master” (178). Exponents of positive liberty focus on internal factors rather than external actors by painting the self as essentially divided, typically into a higher and lower self. The higher of these selves, distinguished perhaps by rationality or length of outlook, represents in some sense the true realization of an individual’s potential, nature, or entity. This being is marked by possessing full self-consciousness, bearing full responsibility for one’s choices, and not being a slave to one’s nature or “unbridled