+Since I was a boy I've been a fan of the outdoors, and particularly of camping. +Perhaps one of the most influential experiences of my life was when I worked +with the Conservation Corps in 2014, where I spent a whole month primarily +sleeping in a tent. What influenced my love of the outdoors might've been the +days I would spend up at my grandfather's house, in Northern Minnesota, where +although, for as long as I can remember, he had a nice house that was rather +comfortable, but most of our time was actually spent outside: around the lake, +amongst the trees. Some times, if there was a family reunion and all the +bedrooms were used up, we'd sleep outside in a tent; something I always found to +be rather exciting. Yet there's something else, something so particular to the +outdoors, and later on camping specifically, that I loved so much: freedom. +
+ ++I think most of us, whether we like camping or not, recognize that there is a +certain freedom in it. Those of us who love camping will even go so far as to +say that we are more free while camping than we are in the city. And this +statement, again, even to those who may not particularly like camping, can still +intuitively be recognized as something coherent. There seems to be some +intuitive recognition that being so exposed to a natural environment grants us +more freedom. But what do we mean by this? What do we mean by freedom? +
+ ++Normally, in our contemporary society, when someone is asked what freedom is, +the response is typically something along the lines of having more choices. The +Oxford Dictionary defines freedom as "The power or right to act, speak, or think +as one wants." (def. 1). So by this definition, the more choices one has +available to do what one wishes to do, the more free one is. Yet, by +this criteria what grants us more freedom should be the city, where we have many +more options as to what we can do with our time and resources. In contrast, +while camping we're extremely limited in what we can do, and we're forced to do +things in such a way that it adapts to our surroundings. How could this be? Is +our intuition failing us? Some may believe so, but I would like to propose +another solution to this contradiction: what's mistaken isn't our intuition, but +our definition. +
+ ++Let's begin with a short mental exercise demonstrating the flaws of the +previously mentioned definition. Imagine that you are given a list of things you +can do: a very long list. But all of these things are bad -e.g. rob a store, +murder an old woman, eat nails, etc. There are thousands of these sorts of +options on the list. Now imagine that instead you are given a much +smaller list with only three possibilities: read a book, play a musical +instrument, or watch a movie. While the first list is considerably longer, we +intuitively consider the second to grant us more freedom than the first. Thus we +can conclude that freedom is not only about the number of options available to +us, but also the quality of the options. Thus no amount of bad options can make +us more free. It is only by providing good options that we become more free. +
+ ++The question then becomes: what can we consider a good option? Basing +oneself on the Oxford definition provided previously, one may say that a good +option is simply that which one wants. Here, however, we come across +what seems to be a subjectivist bias: something is good because I perceive it as +good; the goodness of an option depends on the subject that perceives it, not on +the object (the option) itself. Yet this seems to conflict, again, with our +intuition once we bring out some examples. If someone wishes to murder someone +else, it is not a restriction of their freedom for society to forbid such an +action, and even restrain him should he try to do it. One may claim that +infringing upon the freedom of another does not constitute as a good choice, but +this only brings us onto more shaky ground, as we enter a circular definition of +freedom: +
+ ++ Freedom is the ability to make good choices. Good choices are things that I + want which don't infringe upon the freedom of others. Thus freedom is the + ability to do things that we want to do which do not infringe upon the + freedom of others. ++ +
+Notice how in the concluding definition the term "freedom" appears in its own +definition. This is the problem, for it begs the question: what is the freedom +of the other? And so we enter into this infinite loop. Yet, even conceding to +this ridiculous definition, we still have a very big problem: goodness is +defined by subjective desire -i.e. want. To rebut the idea, one need only +consider the case of the masochist. Is it infringing upon the freedom of the +masochist to torture him? On what basis? After all, it is something that he +desires, and thus is it not a part of his own freedom and the freedom +of he who tortures the masochist? Would it not be tyrannical, under such a +definition, to impede and deter people of a society from such behaviour? As we +can see, such a definition is, quite simply, absurd. +
+ ++So now we are left with the question: what truly is freedom then? I would argue +that freedom is the ability to do that which contributes to a greater +realization of oneself in accordance to one's nature -which, in our case, is +human. I do not wish to get too caught up in this, since it derails into a +subject which isn't the point of this article, but the gist is that all beings +have a nature that is fundamentally a part of them. The more a being +partakes in its nature, the more good that being is. Yet, a being that +is, for one reason or another, incapable of partaking in its nature is +bad in the sense that it is bad for it to lack the ability, while it is +not considered bad that a being cannot partake in something contrary or outside +its nature. For example, if a pig cannot fly we do not consider that there is +anything wrong with the pig because flying is not a part of its nature, yet we +do believe there is something wrong with a pig that cannot oink, for pigs +are supposed to oink, and there is something bad, therefore, about this +pig such that it cannot oink. With this in mind, a good choice for the +pig would be to roll in the mud to cool off, while a bad choice would be to try +to bark. [For further study, look into the philosophy of Aristotle and St. +Thomas Aquinas.] +
+ ++With all this being said, we return to the beginning of this article: why do we +feel as though a natural environment (or camping) gives us more freedom than an +urban one where we have more choices? The first thing we could look at is the +quality of the choices we have in both scenarios. +
+ ++One thing to consider is that, as redundant as it sounds, a natural environment +is more conducive towards the beings in that environment acting in accordance to +their nature. Although you can do things which are bad in a natural environment, +the choices you have available to you are mostly good: they conduce towards your +thriving as a human being -e.g. cooking, preparing shelter, washing. One may +also notice that these activities are more rudimentary and primal. When in such +a natural environment we spend more time on things which are of necessity -which +will be conducive towards our flourishing- and not as much on other sorts of +activities which may or may not be good. Meanwhile, if we consider the life in +the city, these rudimentary and primal tasks are actually made extremely +convenient. The most difficult thing is working a job that will pay for it. +Aside from that, there seems to be way more options, but many of these aren't +necessarily conducive to human flourishing -e.g. ample access to pornography, +prostitution, mindless video-gaming or television consumption, poverty that +encourages crime, etc. One may argue that in the city one also has more choices +to do things which lead to human thriving via certain infrastructures like +libraries, the web, and sports facilities (to name a few); and I'm not +necessarily claiming that it's impossible to live a fulfilling human life in the +city either, nor that there aren't more possibilities in the city. The problem, +however, is that these possibilities for human thriving -which are numerous- are +entangled with the possibilities for human depravation. So while it's undeniable +that in the city there are more opportunities for human growth (in one's +humanity), at the same time this is amidst the numerous temptations to depravity +which seek to enslave you. Therefore, one feels more free in an environment +without the imposition of these depraved temptations, even if the opportunities +for growth are objectively less in number. +
+ ++Another problem with the vast amount of choices that we are given in the city, +and the reason why having more good choices doesn't necessarily make us more +free, is that we may become overburdened with choice. It's a documented +phenomenon that too many choices seems to make us miserable and unable to make +any decisions.[1] Because of this, compared to an +environment like the city, where we're overburdened not just with good choices, +but also all the bad ones we have to sift through -to greater or lesser +success-, a natural environment while out camping seems much more liberating, as +we are freed precisely from having to consider so many choices. It's simpler, if +you would, and that simplicity helps us to more easily make decisions based upon +a more limited list of options, more of which lead to our self-realization as +human beings. +
+ ++From a religious perspective, it is perhaps best to compare to what we +Christians understand as Man's greatest worldly state: Adam & Eve in the +Garden of Eden. In this state, we consider that Man was most free. In this story +most people will point to the existence of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & +Evil as the source of Man's freedom; and, to an extent, they're not wrong. +However, this is very commonly misinterpreted to mean that God giving Man the +ability to do evil itself was what gave Man freedom. But the true freedom of God +giving Man this choice wasn't the choice to do evil, but the ability to be +virtuous in obedience to God. God gave Man this ability to do evil because +through it Man could display greater virtue than he could have otherwise. The +ability to do evil was not necessary for freedom, as Adam & Eve already had +this. The ability to do evil was only necessary to bring about a greater good: +faith. +
+ ++I would like to clarify that none of my prior reasoning is to say that it is +impossible to live a virtuous life in the city. Nor that in the wilderness one +will necessarily become a saint. My point is to clarify the understanding of +what it means to be free by means of example of what seems to be a commonly +shared human experience. With this knowledge, we can hopefully live better +lives, regardless of our current location of residence, by aiming to achieve +true freedom amidst all that which attempts to enslave us. +
+ +