Freedom and choice
So if it is the case that humanity is naturally inclined toward a degree of authoritarianism, is it the case that true, unfettered freedom is impossible for us to achieve? The answer resides, once again, with the fleas. In juxtaposition to humanity, the flea is inclined to do entirely as it pleases: to jump as high as necessary to achieve its goal of feeding. Yet, given enough time (a few days is a long time in the short lifespan of a flea) the flea’s behaviour can be reprogrammed to go entirely against its nature. Surely, then, the same works in reverse for a human? The societies humans are naturally inclined to form over time entrench themselves and become all-restricting – all political forms of liberalism and libertarianism take place within the context of legislature and law, and therefore cannot escape the structure of the society within which they exist. Society becomes the jar in which the fleas exist. Yet, there is a key difference between humans and fleas. In one of his speeches contemporary philosopher Slavoj Zizek recounts an old joke from the Soviet Union, along the lines of: a man is sent away to a labour camp in Siberia. He and his friends, knowing that any correspondence will be monitored, come up with a code – anything written in blue ink is true, and anything in red ink is a lie. A month later, the friends receive a letter from Siberia. It says in blue ink: ‘life is wonderful here! The shops are full of good exotic food, there are w estern stores and plenty of everything. The only thing we cannot buy is red ink.’ Zizek argues that ‘we lack the language to communicate our freedom’ – yet, red ink can be produced. Despite the socialization of most individuals, we possess the intelligence to break these hardwired notions – unlike the flea. But how does an individual who wants to obtain pure freedom do this? The answer is radical. Since one cannot exist within a society while being entirely free (even anarchical systems tend to involve some level of organization and communal governance), the will of the individual and their human nature are mutually exclusive. Therefore, to obtain unequivocal freedom, the freedom to make any choice we wish, one would have to cease being a social animal. To do this would be no less than to strip away what is their very nature – to reject their humanity. Perhaps the only way to achieve this would be through a disassociation from one’s preconceived notion of oneself in order to remove the socialized worldview that individuals inevitably obtain. Furthermore, one would have to become entirely self-centred – not necessarily unfeeling to others but viewing the world through the myopic lens of the self. This could perhaps be described as an ‘ego birth’ – a forcible heightening of identity to the point where one was not fettered by social convention or guided by the way their actions would impact or be received by other people. At this point, the existence of a state would be irrelevant – one who had undergone this process would abide only by the laws they wished to abide by, and therefore compliance with the state would be through their own decisions and not secured by government. The argument can of course be made that the state is still capable of restraining an individual by force, for instance by putting them in prison. This is where a definition of ‘unequivocal freedom’ is needed. In this context, freedom is more psychological – taken to its logical extreme, nobody can take any action they please. Humans cannot always transcend the bounds of their current situation – a middle-class man could not on a whim acquire SpaceX, for example. Does this mean he is incapable of being free? Rather, individuals are free to take whichever action they so desire within the bounds of the physical realm, rather than the metaphysical realm of the state. Finally – is this form of freedom even desirable? Why would a social being wish to divorce themselves entirely from those around them to subdue their socialized beliefs and conscience and gain, therefore, a purely philosophical freedom? One who subscribed to this ideology – say, the protagonist of Camus’ The Outsider – would say that he does not care if it is logical or not. To very few, freedom is so important that even loosening oneself from one’s humanity is an acceptable price to pay for its acquisition.
99
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting