195 lines
11 KiB
HTML
195 lines
11 KiB
HTML
<p>
|
|
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.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
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 <i>freedom</i>?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
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 <em>free</em> 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.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
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 <em>much</em>
|
|
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.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
The question then becomes: what can we consider a <i>good option</i>? Basing
|
|
oneself on the Oxford definition provided previously, one may say that a good
|
|
option is simply that which one <em>wants</em>. 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:
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
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.
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
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. <i>want</i>. 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 <em>and</em> 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.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
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 <i>nature</i> that is fundamentally a part of them. The more a being
|
|
partakes in its nature, the more <i>good</i> that being is. Yet, a being that
|
|
is, for one reason or another, incapable of partaking in its nature is
|
|
<i>bad</i> 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 <i>oink</i>, for pigs
|
|
are supposed to <i>oink</i>, and there is something bad, therefore, about this
|
|
pig such that it cannot <i>oink</i>. 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.]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
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
|
|
<em>quality</em> of the choices we have in both scenarios.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
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.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
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.<sup><a href="#r1" >[1]</a></sup> 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.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
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.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
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.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol class="refs" >
|
|
<li>
|
|
<a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90366816/why-having-too-many-choices-is-a-bad-thing" >
|
|
"Why having too many choices makes us miserable" on Fast Company
|
|
</a>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ol>
|